I think that is very ambitious if done correctly. The slow games alone would take many hours since you should analyze them carefully afterward.
Improvement Program
Sort:
Sep 19, 2018
0
#3
2 hours a day I'd say (if you mean 3 10min games). Pretty good plan.
madratter7 wrote:
I think that is very ambitious if done correctly. The slow games alone would take many hours since you should analyze them carefully afterward.
well @madratter, i mean 15|10 games. I am very very very poor at slow time controls because I cannot shake my habit of moving instantly. So it is partly also an exercise in developing patience. Otherwise, I agree it is a bit ambitious.
Sep 19, 2018
0
#5
DeirdreSkye wrote:
3 games every day are too many.
Do not play games without analysing them.
1 game every day and extensive anaysis is already more than enough. Not even professional GMs play more than that.
The important is to find tough opponents and not rely in random selection. Search around the net for players that are 200-300 higher rated.Play only against guys that you know they take their games seriously.
You need opponents that can create problems and can show you your deficiencies. Your deficiencies will help you design your training program accordingly. Easy wins are simply a waste of time for you at this point.
And , if you don't learn to play long time control games and think , you will only hinder your improvement or kill your potential. It's you the one that will be hurt in the long run. Don't play anything less than 30/30.
LOL
Sep 19, 2018
0
#6
DeirdreSkye wrote:
1 game every day and extensive anaysis is already more than enough. Not even professional GMs play more than that.
Yeah, all he has to do is send a live chess game search for 40/90, SD/30, +30 from move 1. Just like the Sinquefield Cup.
You know, those 60 move games online that last 5 hours.
He was probably planning to play 3 of those a day, but it's a good thing you told him that's too much.
Farm_Hand wrote:
DeirdreSkye wrote:
1 game every day and extensive anaysis is already more than enough. Not even professional GMs play more than that.
Yeah, all he has to do is send a live chess game search for 40/90, SD/30, +30 from move 1. Just like the Sinquefield Cup.
You know, those 60 move games online that last 5 hours.
He was probably planning to play 3 of those a day, but it's a good thing you told him that's too much.
You obviously didn't read post #4, where the OP said what "slow" games he was playing: 15/10.
Sep 19, 2018
0
#8
I was being sarcastic... obviously I didn't think he planned on playing the same time controls used in the Sinquefield Cup, and obviously I know such a time control isn't even possible online.
I mean, we can't even say Poe's Law because I used a smiley face so... I can't understand why you'd take my post literally.
Farm_Hand wrote:
I was being sarcastic... obviously I didn't think he planned on playing the same time controls used in the Sinquefield Cup, and obviously I know such a time control isn't even possible online.
I mean, we can't even say Poe's Law because I used a smiley face so... I can't understand why you'd take my post literally.
There is critical sarcasm and humorous sarcasm. From the context, I took yours to be the former kind, criticizing the sound advice from @DeirdreSkye. My bad for not recognizing how you actually meant it.
DeirdreSkye wrote:
3 games every day are too many.
Do not play games without analysing them.
1 game every day and extensive anaysis is already more than enough. Not even professional GMs play more than that.
The important is to find tough opponents and not rely in random selection. Search around the net for players that are 200-300 higher rated.Play only against guys that you know they take their games seriously.
You need opponents that can create problems and can show you your deficiencies. Your deficiencies will help you design your training program accordingly. Easy wins are simply a waste of time for you at this point.
And , if you don't learn to play long time control games and think , you will only hinder your improvement or kill your potential. It's you the one that will be hurt in the long run. Don't play anything less than 30/30.
Cool. 1 game it is then. Perhaps on ICC or Playchess.
Sep 19, 2018
0
#11
I like making study plans. I've a made a lot for chess, and some for other things too. Sometimes I fill a page with ideas. I work out all the times, day to day, month to month, etc.
In the end plans don't matter very much though. It's mostly passion. If you enjoy chess and enjoy learning more about chess then you'll give quality time to chess, no plans necessary.
FWIW your plan in the OP seems good to me.
Most important IMO though is:
1) Whether you're actually interested in the activity and
2) Whether the activity serves a purpose (like strengthening your weak areas)
That's pretty much it.
@Farm_Hand, true I agree with you. However, you will see many posts in the forums stressing the importance of working according to a plan and some of it makes sense to me.
My own development in chess has been well, to put it in one word .. 'Wrong'. I have developed as a pure 5 minute player having played more than 40,000 games in the past 8 years. Can this ever be corrected. Don't know. But I will try.
And that is a generous offer I would accept if I were you.
DeirdreSkye wrote:
Well , in chess the important is to find the mistakes and the reasons. Most will spend an entire life without ever realising or accepting that they did something wrong. Just understanding what you do wrong and what you need fix , is actually a huge step.It shows thinking and objective evaluation, important skills for a chessplayer.And most importantly it shows the will to do things better.
By the way I am offering to play training games and help you analyse them.
Cool. We can play training games. I accept your offer.
By the way @DeirdreSkye, please suggest the structure.
You're in United States time and I am in Indian standard time we have to work out a time slot.
Cool. Got it. Can I use Fundamental Chess Endings by Muller and LAmprecht instead of Dvoretsky. I don't have a hard copy of Dvoretsky lying around anywhere. I'll order a copy of Shereshevsky.
To be frank, I spend around 2-3 minutes on a position in Aagaard. Beyond that my brain shuts down and asks for the soltuion. Also, something we should work on I think.
DeirdreSkye wrote:
pdve wrote:
Cool. Got it. Can I use Fundamental Chess Endings by Muller and LAmprecht instead of Dvoretsky. I don't have a hard copy of Dvoretsky lying around anywhere. I'll order a copy of Shereshevsky.
To be frank, I spend around 2-3 minutes on a position in Aagaard. Beyond that my brain shuts down and asks for the soltuion. Also, something we should work on I think.
2-3 minutes are hardly enough. Try more , if you can't find the solution read it bt try to understand it and try to understand why you missed it. If you don't learn something from every position , it's pointless.
I have Muller's book , it's very good but it's a huge book that is more a reference book, something like an encyclopedia. I am not sure it's the right book to start.
Ok. Let me try and get both Dvoretsky and Shereshevsky. You could maybe guide me how to go on about studying it. The rest I can handle. Yeah I spend 2-3 minutes, like I would in a 5 minute game. Not the right approach. That's registered with me now. So now I will start with this program tomorrow.
Yes @Bobby_Talparov, I'm not going to go with that said positions a day. I'll find out how many I can do and adjust accordingly.
DeirdreSkye wrote:
pdve wrote:
DeirdreSkye wrote:
pdve wrote:
Cool. Got it. Can I use Fundamental Chess Endings by Muller and LAmprecht instead of Dvoretsky. I don't have a hard copy of Dvoretsky lying around anywhere. I'll order a copy of Shereshevsky.
To be frank, I spend around 2-3 minutes on a position in Aagaard. Beyond that my brain shuts down and asks for the soltuion. Also, something we should work on I think.
2-3 minutes are hardly enough. Try more , if you can't find the solution read it bt try to understand it and try to understand why you missed it. If you don't learn something from every position , it's pointless.
I have Muller's book , it's very good but it's a huge book that is more a reference book, something like an encyclopedia. I am not sure it's the right book to start.
Ok. Let me try and get both Dvoretsky and Shereshevsky. You could maybe guide me how to go on about studying it. The rest I can handle. Yeah I spend 2-3 minutes, like I would in a 5 minute game. Not the right approach. That's registered with me now. So now I will start with this program tomorrow.
Yes @Bobby_Talparov, I'm not going to go with that said positions a day. I'll find out how many I can do and adjust accordingly.
Every deficiency you have must be attacked and fixed.
If you have trouble focusing , fix that first. In endgames there is a specific target. You must either attack something or promote something or prevent your opponent from doing these if you are on the defending side. This helps a lot to train your ability to focus. It's easier to calculate lines and find out what you did wrong.Start with half an hour(or more) and gradually increase it. Your brain will eventually adapt. Afterall, it doesn't matter how many hours you study if you can't be focused during your study.
Always set bigger "impossible" goals(like learning something from all positions in Aagard's book) but set small realistic goals that will make them possible(like increasing your ability to stay focused for long and improving your calculation).
Hmm .. definitely something to think about here. I'll do the endgame study thing. I do have Hellstein's Mastering Endgame Strategy. Maybe I'll choose one position each day to train on. That will help build up focus. I thought when you said 'After all' I misread it as Adderall. LOL I thought you were suggesting I use Adderall.
I am thinking of embarking on an improvement program to increase my blitz rating by another 200-300 points. I am thinking of doing
1. 5-10 positions from Aagaard's GM Preparation Positional Play
2. 3 slow games each day
3. 3-5 positions from Yusupov's Boost Your Chess Vol. 2.
4. 1 game from Bronstein's Zurich 1953 tournament book.
Anything I am leaving out and something I should add to this kindly comment.