I am not so sure that advising him to start working on advanced positional analysis is a very good idea. The standard progression of a novice level player typically goes:
He should build a very solid foundation based on numbers 1-3 before he gets into the more advanced 4 and 5 should he not?
First of all, don't plan on devoting so much time to "study" that it interferes with your playing. Chess is a game and it is supposed to be fun and enjoyed. If you make it work, it won't be fun, so what's the point?
Play as much as you can, but slower games - at least 25 minutes per side per game or slower. Record your games (or copy the pgn online) so you can review them later and find your mistakes. Study until it begins to seem tedious to you - once it gets there you won't learn anyway.
At an entry/beginning/improving level, study should focus on tactics. Virtually all your games are decided on simple tactics that you see or you don't. These recurring mistakes are easy to correct with practice as you will begin to recognize the most common patterns in your games.
Tactics trainer here is good, and there are also other sites, collections of puzzles, etc. to use for this training.
For opening and positional considerations, start with Rueben Fine's Chess the Easy Way first. It will give you the basics. My feeling is that until you are proficient enough at tactics that you rarely drop pieces to one-move tricks you didn't see, anything more advanced will only confuse you without any real benefit.
i agree
I am not so sure that advising him to start working on advanced positional analysis is a very good idea. The standard progression of a novice level player typically goes:
He should build a very solid foundation based on numbers 1-3 before he gets into the more advanced 4 and 5 should he not?
I don't think we're talking about advanced concepts here. That's probably the problem sometimes: the whole subject of strategy and positional play is considered advanced so it gets neglected or completely bypassed.
Possibly the order matters (eg. learn the rules, then learn some tactics). Are we talking about a rank beginner, or an unschooled enthusiast? But, in my opinion, there's no order in which a chess student should learn the basics of all aspects of chess, with the exception of the ultimate basics of the rules and principles themselves.
1. Rules and principles (rules, piece values)
- Basic tactics (pins, forks, etc.)
- Basic opening concepts (control the center, King safety, development)
- Basic positional play (Knights in advanced support points, Bad/good/active/inactive Bishops, passed pawns/pawn holes/pawn islands, etc)
- Basic endings ( King/Rook vs King ending, Opposition, piece combinations that can and cannot mate a lone King, etc.)
Learn it all; treat it as one subject: The Basics. Maybe the positional concept of Space is a little too advanced, but knowing that a Knight belongs in a pawn hole is as easy to learn as pinning, or 1.e4 is a good first move.
Once the novice has all the basics in their back pocket (which shouldn't take long at all), then we can talk about which subjects they advance to expert level.
I just don't see how you can ignore positional play at any level, really. Think about the importance of knowing the base values of the pieces Q=9, R=5, N-B=3, P=1: the moment White moves his first piece these values change; you need to know about positional concepts to know what they change to! What about improving your chess by analysing your own games: how can you analyse accurately without positional knowledge; if you can't analyse accurately, how can you improve.
Fritz does have some advice features, but it's fairly primitive as far as I could see. Better off learning the concepts then going with your own judgement - a computer's never going to be able to match that one-glance full-board assessment you get from learning the concepts yourself.
Ditto.