How to become an expert in Chess?

Sort:
Alex_Williams1
gmitchel850 wrote:
sekhar1 wrote:

And I have strong reservations against turn based chess; nothing personal though. In the case of turn based chess, I can't know for sure how much time my opponent will be spending for each move. He may be spending 1 hour or more per move after referring many books, consulting with an expert etc. On other hand, I may be spending only 2 minutes per move. So that is unfair.


 How is it unfair? If you to make superficial evaluations (i.e., spending only two minutes per move) in turn-based chess, that's your choice. You have the same opportunity as your opponent to make a very careful and well-considered move.

That's the benefit of turn-based chess. It improves your calculation and evaluation skills, precisely because time is not such a constraint, as it is in OTB or live chess.

You can also move the pieces or use a separate analysis board to work out really long variations with greater precision.

BTW, the current FIDE tournament times work out to approximately two minutes per move. You do not need 140 minute time limits to get there OTB.

I'm not a fan of blitz chess, because it relies more on pattern recognition (and chutzpah) than OTB tournament times. But, I play it relatively often (something like 15 or 20 minutes with a 10 second increment) precisely because it does improve pattern recognition.

I would suggest that a balance of shorter and longer OTB games and some turn-based games will improve your chess playing "all around" than focusing just on one to the exclusion of the others.

Happy holidays!

Mitch


Thank you for the information. Yes, I know perfectly that the time I spend for each move in turn based chess is my choice. But, with the present time constraints I have, I may not be able to spend as much time my opponent might be spending on each move. So, that is what I meant when I said that it would not be fair. Any way, after reading your post, I am now more interested in turn based chess; even though I may not try it at least until my MBA admission and visa approval is confirmed.

Happy vacations for you (and not for me - I have to study a lot Smile)

Alex_Williams1
ChessMarkstheSpot wrote:

   This is something I find very important in my chess life - studying and playing. I own a pretty good arsenal of books, but they're not worth the paper that they are printed on if I don't study from them, let alone look at them. I've given up TV, was a die hard sports fan for over 30 years, and have taken all the games off my hard drive, except my chess programs and Civ III to study chess, but yet have still not gone into the books that much.

   My goal in chess is at least 1800, whether on here or OTB, but that won't happen unless I start working at it. I'm not the one to talk but 7 hrs/a week won't get you to where you are now to where you want to be in the near future. 30-35 hrs a week just means you'll get there a little bit faster. Listen to myself and Prawn even more about this. There's no progress in chess without blood sweat and a lot of tears.

   *going to play and study and take my own advice as well for a change*

   -Mark


Chessmarksthespots, it is all about priorities in life. I agree to you completely that the more I spend quality time for chess, the faster I will improve. But, if I don't intend chess to make my full time career, there will be definitely a limit I have to impose on the time spent for playing chess; if the career path I chose is so much time - demanding type. 

Let me try to clarify the question I raised again: Even if don't become an expert in my entire life, I don't mind. But, I will definitely try to achieve that, in case I have enough time for that. So, my question is how to effectively try to become considerably better. And at present, I don't set any particular time limit for me to become, say a master.

There are things that are more important to me than chess. Same will be the case with you and everybody else also, if chess is not your full time career.

Anyway, I who was in his 1200s and 1100s in August when I began is now in 1400s. So, certainly, at least until a particular level, there should be growth, by merely playing games; even if the improvement rate will not be very good. From that particular level onwards, may be I should undergo some training as per my time - availability to improve further.

PrawnEatsPrawn

@ sekhar1

 

How old are you?

orangehonda

You should spend a lot more time playing than studying at the beginner level.  If you want to divide 7 hours then say 5-6 hours of play and 1 hour of study.  When you play, challenge yourself to find the best moves you can, don't settle for a move that might work or looks good at first.  The quote "once you find a good move, stop, look for a better one" is good advice.  After working very hard on every move, when you study pick 1 book.  I can be tactics or endgames or a strategy book, and with your 1 to 2 hours go over it and take notes of things you find important or useful.  Don't switch to another book until that book is completely finished.

The secret to getting good at chess is a lot like the secret to getting good at anything.  Word hard at it and over time you'll get a lot of skill.  The problem with getting good at chess is a lot like the problem with getting good at anything, you have to put it before other things in your life, and because hard work isn't fun it's hard to be disciplined about it.  Good luck :)

KyleJRM

I do think it's important to learn how and what to study.  You can spend seven hours a week flailing around on blitz games and reinforcing your own mistakes, or you can spend seven hours a week memorizing opening lines, and you'll find that you make your progress much, much slower.

The consensus among the top teachers seems to be that you need to divide your time between:

1) Playing slow games, using up as much of the time control as possible to think about your moves.

2) Studying tactics to learn as many basic tactical patterns by sight as possible.

3) Learning endgames

4) Going over the games of master-level players, especially those with annotations


The exact methods you use and how you split your time between them are up to you.

skogli

Most people will never be anny good, you need to have a special talent for chess.

Ordinary people who work hard for years only reach somewhere around 2000-2200 in fide.

1.Try to have fun with chess.

 - If you aim to high you'll probably give up after some years when the reallity hits you, most people will allways suck at chess, no matter what they do!

Alex_Williams1
chessmates wrote:

You could all the things the members of the forum suggested.

May be you should ask Viswanathan Anand about the secret of becoming a world chess Champion!!


 

No, I can't ask Vishi (Vishwanathan Anand) his secret. 3 months back, I was wondering whether I should make chess my full time career or not. When Vishi knew about this, he was really worried about his chances of retaining his title. So, he personally came to my house (his native place is in my neighbouring state) and requested me  not to make chess my full time career. So, I cannot follow your advice. Laughing

Alex_Williams1
CBA wrote:

The only way to become world champion is by running up steps a lot and punching hunks of chilled meat at a butcher's.


And may be killing all the better chess players in planet earth. Laughing

skogli

Why talk about chess carrier when you really suck at chess? If you had a 2400+ rating in live and a low age you could think about it. But 1300-1400, forget it! 

Alex_Williams1
orangehonda wrote:

You should spend a lot more time playing than studying at the beginner level.  If you want to divide 7 hours then say 5-6 hours of play and 1 hour of study.  When you play, challenge yourself to find the best moves you can, don't settle for a move that might work or looks good at first.  The quote "once you find a good move, stop, look for a better one" is good advice.  After working very hard on every move, when you study pick 1 book.  I can be tactics or endgames or a strategy book, and with your 1 to 2 hours go over it and take notes of things you find important or useful.  Don't switch to another book until that book is completely finished.

The secret to getting good at chess is a lot like the secret to getting good at anything.  Word hard at it and over time you'll get a lot of skill.  The problem with getting good at chess is a lot like the problem with getting good at anything, you have to put it before other things in your life, and because hard work isn't fun it's hard to be disciplined about it.  Good luck :)


Thanks, I perfectly agree with most of the points made by you. I know very well that if I can make chess my full time career, I will become considerably better even in a matter of few months.

But, in my GMAT class today, the Lecturer was asking us to use all our time for GMAT preparation. (He shouldn't see me typing all these stuff here - Then I am finished). He stated that "None of you will have a peaceful sleep until you write your GMAT test." So it is this GMAT Lecturer who is the villian. If he wasn't there, I could have spent more time for chess. Damn him. Laughing

Alex_Williams1

Before moving ahead, let me make a few requests to all the people who take part in this thread:

1. Please don't engage in any personal attacks

2. Please don't deviate from the topic

3. Please avoid the focus on me, as far as possible (even though I may love it). I am already feeling guilty that I spend too much time in explaining my life to others in the context of this topic, here in this thread. As we all  know, the forums in chess.com are intended for the benefit of everybody; not just an individual.

I am not a philanthropist; perhaps the opposite of that and may be the most selfish person ever lived in this planet; but, I want not only me, but many others, say thousands (is it a very big exaggeration?Smile) to get benefits from this thread; because I know perfectly that these forums are intended for the benefits of everybody.

Yes, I confess that I carried away a lot in explaining about myself; which was in realty, impolite. And now, I say sorry for that.

 Under the present circumstances, let me once again reframe the topic of this forum:

"We all play chess. Most of us want to be really good at chess. But, only some of us are able to do it. We may not able to do much about our inherent talents etc. But, many of us might not be spending our time for chess (whatever be the duration), in the most effective way possible. Anyway, I am sure that I any way don't do and I have screwed it up all myself. 

Different people will be spending different amount of time for playing chess - say 7/14/21/28/35/42 etc. hours per week depending on various factors. Why I stress on the multiples of 7 is that if it is a multiple of 7, we can easily calculate the daily average.

So, my question is for a beginner, say, me Smile, who is having a live chess standard rating of 1434 or some one else, who can spend 'x' hours per week on an average; whatever be x; how much percentage of time available for chess he/she has to spend for playing, preparing etc. until he/she reach, say 1800 in chess.com (in turn based chess or live standard or both) (Hopefully, it is the intermediate level.)? 

I am seeking some general guidelines in this direction as I know very well that there cannot be a perfect generalised answer and opinions do vary."

heinzie

Just move to another country. You'll be an expat in chess in no time.

heinzie

The bigger your brains, the higher your rating...

Alex_Williams1
heinzie wrote:

Just move to another country. You'll be an expat in chess in no time.


why? SmileSurprised

SouthForce

At your present level a '7-hours-per-week' training program can be the following:

- 2 hours: tactics training (you have to develop the ability to recognize patterns)

- 1 hour: opening preparation (learn the basic principles of two openings for white and two openings for black; use them in your games; don't memorize complicate variations)

- 2,5 hours: playing games (play slow games with a bit little stronger opponents, 30 0 or 20 10 can be OK; when you play, use your time and try to develop a basic analytical skill, i.e. before moving look at your opponent pieces, at what they are threating and imagine the consequences of the moving you're thinking to play, if it stops the threat, if it improves the activity of your pieces, if it can allow you to gain an advantage, etc.; if the move doesn't fit, look at possible better moves)

- 1,5 hours: analyzing your games (it's the hard part because generally it's not fun Smile, but the benefits can be important; if possible do it with a stronger player, otherwise use a chess engine; look first at your openings, verify if you played dubious moves, try to understand why another move can be better, find in a database master or grandmaster games that use the same opening and see how they afford the position; then look at the moments of your game where the engine gives a '?' or a '??' to your moves: ask yourself 'why my move is wrong?', 'why didn't I consider that opponent reply', etc. and try to understand why the suggested moves are better; finally annote in a workbook two or three things that you've learned from analyzing your game and read them periodically).

This program can help you for a +100 ELO increment, then the things will change: you will have to develop other skills, such as positional evaluation, imbalances, endgame knowledge, firm discipline in analyzing candidate moves, etc. with the lecture of good books.

good luck!

heinzie
get_lost wrote:
sekhar1 wrote:
heinzie wrote:

Just move to another country. You'll be an expat in chess in no time.


why? 


Failed attempt at humour by heinzie.


Hey, get lost! I'll decide for myself what stuff I find amusing. :)

farbror

4 hours playing slow games

2 hours tactics

1 hour additional analysis of key decisions in your slow games

(including a quick look into an opening manual to figure out where you left Opening Theory)

Conquistador

Run a marathon, save kittens from trees, and a diet of french toast.  Don't tell anyone the secret though...

philo32
[COMMENT DELETED]
philidorposition

From my experience, the most rewarding type of study is

studying GM games with a certain repertoire (pick a side & play guess-the-move),

trying to solve problems (either tactics problems, or strategical problems like the ones at Chess Mentor, or How to Reassess your Chess Workbook),

playing slow games with detailed post-mortem analysis (including psychological analysis, like, where you drifted off, where you lost your focus after a slight inaccuracy etc.).