x
Chess - Play & Learn

Chess.com

FREE - In Google Play

FREE - in Win Phone Store

VIEW

Is becoming a Master an achievable goal?

  • #21
    SeniorPatzer wrote:
    Reb wrote:

    I did it but I had smaller goals from the start and didnt really think about becoming a master until I actually beat a few in tournament games . I played my first tourney in 73 at age 20 and lost every game . I first broke 2200 in 1984 , it took me 11 years . My first goal was to be better than one of our club players who was very arrogant and used to beat me mercilessly and then gloat about it , he was only B class in strength but I was just starting . I recall my next goal was to be an A class player . As an A class player I started playing against experts and masters and began to beat some of them . At this point I set 2 goals : to break 2200 and become Ga state champion . I broke 2200 in 84 and then became state champion in 87 .  Set reasonable goals  and then set new ones as you achieve them . 

     

    I think Reb's approach is solid.  Set mini-goals, work hard to reach them, then move up the ladder to the next mini-goal.

     

    Well done, Reb!!

    Couldn't agree more

  • #22

    kindaspongey wrote:

    BobbyTalparov wrote:

    ... If you read the very next sentence after what you quoted, you will see a very enlightening piece of information.

    There is this sentence: "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."

    The very next sentence is: "Despite all that accumulation of knowledge, he was getting nowhere."

    Again, that (along with the subsequent stuff) does indeed indicate that he needed to work on tactics, but I do not see how it shows "that you can reach 2000 simply by practicing tactics until you are blue in the face."

    http://www.chess.com/article/view/the-michael-de-la-maza-story

    One of these days you will stop trying to skim material and actually read it for understanding. "So it turned out HTRYC was not the panacea that Michael had hoped. But what was? So, in desperation, Michael turned to some other fundamental (and common sense) advice about learning tactics really well, and augmenting other analytical skills. For example, he developed and performed a series of very intense "board vision" puzzles to improve his ability to quickly and accurately determine what was happening on a chess board. While not giving up tournament play, Michael did, for a short time, essentially "lock himself in a closet" and intensely work on some specialized basics." (2 paragraphs down from where you are currently stopping). Or, again, you can actually read his book (and skip over all the motivational mumbo-jumbo).
  • #23
    BobbyTalparov wrote:

    ... "So it turned out HTRYC was not the panacea that Michael [de la Maza] had hoped. But what was? So, in desperation, Michael turned to some other fundamental (and common sense) advice about learning tactics really well, and augmenting other analytical skills. For example, he developed and performed a series of very intense "board vision" puzzles to improve his ability to quickly and accurately determine what was happening on a chess board. While not giving up tournament play, Michael did, for a short time, essentially "lock himself in a closet" and intensely work on some specialized basics." ...

    Again, that does indeed suggest that he needed to work on tactics, but I do not see how it shows "that you can reach 2000 simply by practicing tactics until you are blue in the face." Apparently, he had "studied openings, endgames, and other 'chess knowledge' information."

    http://www.chess.com/article/view/the-michael-de-la-maza-story

  • #24
    kindaspongey wrote:

    Again, that does indeed suggest that he needed to work on tactics, but I do not see how it shows "that you can reach 2000 simply by practicing tactics until you are blue in the face." Apparently, he had studied openings, endgames, and other 'chess knowledge' information."

    http://www.chess.com/article/view/the-michael-de-la-maza-story

    You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot force him to drink.

  • #25

    Yes, you can easily become a master. All you need to do is some serious, focused work on your play.

    That "chess is 99% tactics and blah-blah" thing is crap. Chess is several things (opening, endgame, middlegame strategy, positional play, tactics, psychology, time management...) which should be treated properly as a whole. getting just one element of lay and working exclusively on it is of very doubtful value, and at worst it may well turn out being a waste of time.

     

  • #26

     Yeah, mostly you have to enjoy playing and learning about chess. If you play and learn every day, after some years you'll have improved a lot. Whether or not you improve enough to make master depends on your motivation and, ok, at least partly on your age.

    But anyway, the stuff you ask about goals and titles doesn't really matter. Mostly you need to enjoy playing and learning.

  • #27

     If you're fooled by the infomercial style pitch de la Mesa makes for tactics I feel sorry for you. If you're looking for the magic bullet that means you wont have to study anything else, then you've already failed (see my post above).

  • #28

  • #29

    Why anyone would like to become a chess master is something I do not understand. 

     

    Why waste several hours a day on a board game when there are so many different interesting things to do in life? 

  • #30
    Pashak1989 wrote:

    Why anyone would like to become a chess master is something I do not understand. 

    I don't believe you.

    It also comes off as sour grapes (if you can't have something you want, then you decide it's not worth having and you don't actually want it).

  • #31
    poodle_noodle escribió:
    Pashak1989 wrote:

    Why anyone would like to become a chess master is something I do not understand. 

    I don't believe you.

    It also comes off as sour grapes (if you can't have something you want, then you decide it's not worth having and you don't actually want it).

     

    You are absolutely nuts if you think that I actually wanted/want to become a chess master.

     

    Chess is just a hobby for me. It is a nice and interesting board game, and only that. 

     

    Wasting several hours a day learning openings or solving tactics to hopefully one day have a title of chess master?? Pffff, I am not crazy. 

    I can easily name you at least 20 activities that are way more productive and useful than chess. 

  • #32

    Sounds like I hit the nail on the head.

  • #33

    *Facepalm*

  • #34

    grin.png

  • #35
    pfren wrote:

    Yes, you can easily become a master. All you need to do is some serious, focused work on your play.

    That "chess is 99% tactics and blah-blah" thing is crap. Chess is several things (opening, endgame, middlegame strategy, positional play, tactics, psychology, time management...) which should be treated properly as a whole. getting just one element of lay and working exclusively on it is of very doubtful value, and at worst it may well turn out being a waste of time.

     

    Of course human chess is not. But when it be solved -if it is-, you will see that chess will be 100% tactics. grin.png

Top

Online Now