More or less? - Chess Forums

DavidCharleston

Jan 4, 2018

0

#1

What's a better approach to develop abilities in chess, more chess games in the sense of more practice and experience, or less chess games in the sense of still playing games but having the kind of amount appropriate to avoid straining focus and losing?

I understand the unexplored assumptions hidden underneath, let's explore then.

By the way if one sees this and wants to troll, and be unhelpful, don't.

sammy_boi

Jan 4, 2018

0

#2

The amount that's useful (both in number of games, and hours per day) will be different depending on the person.

The basic principal though, is always to practice what you want to improve. If your want to improve visualization, then during games and training, push yourself to look farther, and be more accurate than you normally would. I.e. take yourself out of your comfort zone. "I want to be good at chess" so you play chess is not specific enough. Plenty of people play 1000s of games without improving at all.

But also we're not machines. If you "practice" 16 hours a day, you'll probably get worse. First of all there's a psychological burden, but also, of course, you run out of energy, and your brain stops working properly. At that point you can keep playing, but you'll only be practicing mistakes. (In reality what normally happens is even if you'd planned to do 16 hours you wont.)

So playing is good, but be purposeful. Be able to answer: What do you want to improve? How are your actions building this improvement? Then afterwards evaluate how effective it's been and change as necessary.

marklovejoy

Jan 4, 2018

0

#3

I'd play fewer games but analyze them. Why did you do what you did? How did it go? How did it relate to the general principles for that part of the game? To me, playing games--no matter the result--without understanding *why* I got the result I did is wasted effort. Then, you'll have an idea where to begin.

kindaspongey

Jan 5, 2018

0

#4

"... How often should you play? If you are trying to improve that means as often as you can, but playing lots of slow games can be tiring and time consuming, so most people are not able to play an OTB tournament every weekend even if one was available down the block. A minimum of 8 OTB tournaments and about 100 slow games a year is a reasonable foundation for ongoing improvement. ..." - NM Dan Heisman (2002)

https://web.archive.org/web/20140627052239/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman16.pdf

sammy_boi

Jan 5, 2018

0

#5

kindaspongey wrote:

"... How often should you play? If you are trying to improve that means as often as you can, but playing lots of slow games can be tiring and time consuming, so most people are not able to play an OTB tournament every weekend even if one was available down the block. A minimum of 8 OTB tournaments and about 100 slow games a year is a reasonable foundation for ongoing improvement. ..." - NM Dan Heisman (2002)

https://web.archive.org/web/20140627052239/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman16.pdf

You didn't post links to 147 different books? Why?

THELONELYSPONGE

Jan 5, 2018

0

#6

Say [removed, not appropriate -- VP]

DavidCharleston

Jan 7, 2018

0

#7

Thank you all for feedback, my apologies that I haven't returned here earlier and for rushing and for not distinguishing between improving versus winning, I'm preoccupied with my matches especially in tournaments. I should preface this by saying that if one not only isn't natural, and is forced in style, in particular to do time consuming chores (which are no guarantee of success in progress in and of themselves) and doesn't find an activity enjoyable then perhaps it's time to reflect and reconsider a couple of things as well. By the way, 'THEONLYSPONGE', I'm not sure why your comment was removed, apparently it's not appropriate to VP whatever or whomever that is, all the same, thanks but no thanks I'm a big boy with thick skin and don't need to be protected from something it's my right to see.

That said if one means 'on the board' by OTB tournaments, that are face to face, I dare say the predominant reason why I'm here is so I can play on my own leisure. Slow play isn't likely to improve fast play like: rapid, blitz and or bullet. I appreciate and thank for this link, https://web.archive.org/web/20140627052239/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman16.pdf , here's one of my own in return, http://www.benfranklin300.org/_etc_pdf/Chess_John_McCrary.pdf ... beware that books, as people's opinions, can be addicting as well as misleading and shouldn't be taken on face value as miraculous.

"I'd play fewer games but analyze them. Why did you do what you did? How did it go? How did it relate to the general principles for that part of the game? To me, playing games--no matter the result--without understanding *why* I got the result I did is wasted effort. Then, you'll have an idea where to begin." Some games don't need analysis, or maybe that's just me, however the question of how it went often just answers itself so it's gratuitous. Whether I can or can't recall a move I made not knowing why I was making it is beside the point, because that's just not in my nature, it's not how I have developed myself. As for your set of principles, to be or not to be broken, I'm not sure how many you might think that there are. Other than that, besides I guess chess is enjoyable?

Last but not least I'd like to engage and reply sammy_boi a couple of points. I think that your first statement, whatever one can make of it, even you should recognize that it's not in particular illuminating or helpful. It's more unsettling than rewarding. For the sake of argument, is it a blunder to say that one wants to improve in general? Perhaps chess has been rendered more convoluted, rather than enlightened, by those whose impression it is to pick something apart to make sense of it, while in reality, making a mess.

If the basic principal is to practice what you want to improve, then does practicing chess not accomplish this? Of course not necessarily, but then again vice versa, that might be the response to any other piece of advice. If there are players who play 1000s and don't improve, can you name any one of them, or do you just presuppose that? Necessity on practice seems to reinforce the need to play those 100s & 1000s though. To sum up you'll notice when rereading that my inquiry was quite specific in itself, and it was more about the better approach to development of overall playing ability, through the prism of whether less or more games in general, are or would be better (with unexplored assumptions none withstanding), than about asking bluntly how to improve at chess?

sammy_boi

Jan 8, 2018

0

#8

DavidCharleston wrote:

I reply in red

Last but not least I'd like to engage and reply sammy_boi a couple of points. I think that your first statement, whatever one can make of it, even you should recognize that it's not in particular illuminating or helpful. It's more unsettling than rewarding. I agree. It's one of those insipid truisms... but the question itself is very vague so I'm struggling a bit with where to start. As a means of developing my answer slowly, I started with some platitude, sorry for that. For the sake of argument, is it a blunder to say that one wants to improve in general? Perhaps chess has been rendered more convoluted, rather than enlightened, by those whose impression it is to pick something apart to make sense of it, while in reality, making a mess.
I'm not a professional trainer. I've played and answered questions (and read answers from much stronger players than myself almost religoiusly) for about 10 years.

Ok, now that that's out of the way, I strongly feel that for beginners (after an introductory phase where you learn a little of everything) it's important to give each of the elements its own attention. I list them as openings, endgames, strategy, and tactics. I also tend to include annotated master games for a total of 5 areas. I feel that students should get at least 1 book for each area, and for some set amount of time (lets say at least a month) should devote study to that area.

To be clear I also break up the day into playing, study, and drills. So the study topic for the month may be endgames, but you can still play and do opening drills, or tactic drills, or some other drill, and maybe you don't do all 3 (study, play, drill) every day, but for that month whenever you sit down to learn something new, the info will be on endgames.

I mention visualization/calculation specifically because you'll often see questions like "what's the trick to being better at ____" (where blank is sometimes calculation). Well there is no trick. It's just hard work. When reading through a book, follow the analysis in your head as far as you can before relying on a board. This is a common piece of advice for improving your ability to calculate / visualize. This is what I mean by practicing the skill you want to improve.

If the basic principal is to practice what you want to improve, then does practicing chess not accomplish this? Of course not necessarily, but then again vice versa, that might be the response to any other piece of advice. If there are players who play 1000s and don't improve, can you name any one of them, or do you just presuppose that?

Oh man, they're everywhere. This is most people. You'll see people on the forum all the time with 10, 20... 50 thousand games and their rating hasn't changed in 5 years. (Most people just enjoy playing and aren't trying to improve though.)

If you're a totally new player, absolutely, my first bit of advice is to just play. Play until you've lost at least 100 games. That will give you a feel for how a game works, how the pieces interact, and so on. Then you can study. If you try to jump right in to studying it may not be very helpful.

Necessity on practice seems to reinforce the need to play those 100s & 1000s though. To sum up you'll notice when rereading that my inquiry was quite specific in itself, and it was more about the better approach to development of overall playing ability, through the prism of whether less or more games in general, are or would be better (with unexplored assumptions none withstanding), than about asking bluntly how to improve at chess?

As for games, sure, the more the better... but quality is absolutely vital.

In an ask me anything super GM Svidler gave his advice for how an amature should improve. He said:

"Play as much as you like, and read as much as you can . . . not as much as you like, I mean to say as much as you can. Every opportunity you have to go to a tournament you should go."
(quote from memory so it's not 100% exact).

So he's talking about books and OTB tournament games where the time controls are minimum 60 minutes. As a professional he's probably thinking of time controls of at least 120 minutes though.

So should you play a lot if you want to improve? Absolutely. Does playing 50 thousand blitz games online (which is tons of fun I admit) help you improve? Not really, no.

sammy_boi

Jan 8, 2018

0

#9

You'll see this guy on the forum from time to time. He's helpful and friendly. IIRC he started chess later in life, and worked to improve as much as he has. His blog is pretty good too.

https://www.chess.com/member/ziryab

He's also played about 50 thousand games on chess.com, and has commented a few times in the past that if he had instead spent that time doing study and tournament games, he may have gotten a master title.

---

I have a friend who had over 100 thousand games here, but he deleted his account (he complained he was addicted, and would spend almost every waking hour on the weekends playing chess). He's been rated in the 1500s for years.

---

I myself, for a long time, relaxed after work with some alcohol, blitz chess, and loud music

A lot of fun, highly recommended if that's your thing.

I played every day, but I didn't improve (in fact it set up roadblocks for improvement later).

rontogany

Jan 8, 2018

0

#10

Drinking alcohol and playing chess will not improve your game i am a great example of that.

sammy_boi

Jan 8, 2018

0

#11

You don't see this guy on the forums much anymore, but he was also friendly and helpful. He made blog post about the pros and cons of various training resources. You might find it interesting.

https://www.chess.com/blog/hicetnunc/resources-for-systematic-training

kindaspongey

Jan 8, 2018

0

#12

It does not seem to be generally agreed that it is necessary to learn new stuff in only one area for at least a month.

sammy_boi

Jan 8, 2018

0

#13

Yeah, my outline of the elements and then breaking the day into study, drills, and play, is my own conception.

I recommend at least a month because you'll sometimes see beginners talk about "Monday I do openings out of this book, Tuesday I do tactics out of that book, Wednesday I do endgames"

etc.

If you can do that and stay focused, great... but I don't think it would work for everyone, so I recommend sticking with a single book out of which you do your study, and then if you want to do other things on that side, that's fine, but make them drill oriented.

kindaspongey

Jan 8, 2018

0

#14

"... This book is the first volume in a series of manuals designed for players who are building the foundations of their chess knowledge. The reader will receive the necessary basic knowledge in six areas of the game - tactcs, positional play, strategy, the calculation of variations, the opening and the endgame. ... To make the book entertaining and varied, I have mixed up these different areas, ..." - GM Artur Yusupov

http://www.qualitychess.co.uk/ebooks/QandAwithArturYusupovQualityChessAugust2013.pdf

https://www.qualitychess.co.uk/ebooks/Revision&Exam1-excerpt.pdf

kindaspongey

Jan 8, 2018

0

#15

I agree that an openings-on-Monday-Tactics-on-Tuesday-etc. schedule is not a good idea, but my guess is that it is best to do without a schedule altogether and allow one's reading and game experiences to guide what one looks at next.

sammy_boi

Jan 8, 2018

0

#16

So if you only had 10 hours a week, I might say, for example

On Monday and Wednesday you warm up with some tactical puzzles (I'd call this drills) for 20 minutes, then play for an hour, then read out of a book for 30 minutes. Take a few minutes after each game to write down your biggest mistake. This will become your list of mistakes. As it gets long, you'll be able to see the areas or things you need to work on most.

On Tuesday and Thursday you do some endgame exercises (I'd call this drills) for 20 minutes, then play for an hour, then read out of a book for 30 minutes.

On Friday you can do whatever is interesting. Any topic or activity for as long as you like. It could be all blitz games, or watching instructional youtube videos, or whatever.

You can get tactics and endgames drills here
You can use Yasser Seirawan's "Winning Chess" series for books (other books exist of course, ask around and read reviews)
Games on chess.com (but preferably you can join a local club and play OTB).

sammy_boi

Jan 8, 2018

0

#17

kindaspongey wrote:

I agree that an openings-on-Monday-Tactics-on-Tuesday-etc. schedule is not a good idea, but my guess is that it is best to do without a schedule altogether and allow one's reading and game experiences to guide what one looks at next.

Yeah, this may be best for some people.

For me, it was motivating to have some kind of plan for my week. Otherwise I'd end up doing nothing

And usually I'd have as a 1 month or 2 month long goal to finish a book.

DavidCharleston

Jan 8, 2018

0

#18

I can play now for a few years, doesn't mean I have played for all of those few years, because I didn't have anyone to play with OTB and just wasted time with theory. Chess addiction isn't much different from book addiction, if you're obsessed, absorbed and preoccupied with an activity of reading theory, and don't actually engage or play you won't improve your ability in anything without practice. Certainly not vision in chess, doesn't mean I'm advocating for a lack of "thinking" on what it is one is actually doing and whether it's working, if you don't test yourself against others however you'll be all talk.

I had two books on chess and have played maybe about 300 to 500 chess games in my life, mostly blitz on other websites. I now agree hallelujah that only long games can improve, unless one wants to improve in blitz then one better play blitz. Improvement in general at speed requires faster paced games to be played, but one can just by pass short fast games and develop one's abilities through long slow games, and then just extrapolate the principals and understanding (understanding one usually acquires through sober and conscious experience of much practice and usually over the years) from long slow games and apply it to rapid, blitz or bullet. Once one knows what one is doing, it all will be faster, that's why older people often can be as good and fast if not better and faster.

Of course quality matters and in that spirit it's best to test oneself against stronger and stronger opponents in anything one does, and keep running into the act of saying, why or whom do I even bother? That's the way to improve in anything, of course anything I do it's not my goal to suck but to improve, and that can be achieved by surrounding oneself with people who know what they're doing. People know what they're doing because they've been doing it for years, and that's experience which is priceless if one can verbalize it in theory, and then apply it in practice, again against those one is likely to lose with and once again try to learn. That's why I would seek out and surround myself with the best in anything I wished to devote myself to. In this day and age through the Internet it's easier than ever before.

I'm sure Fischer, Kasparov and Carlsen had some embarrassing defeats throughout their many years, or even months and weeks if one can pack a years worth in that amount, and they learned a lot from this. Those defeats and setbacks occurred especially when they were still learning the ropes, and one never stops learning, in the sense that one has plenty to learn even when one hits a mental road block, like the great Karpov with his massive library on chess, once one reaches his level it's hard either to notice significant improvement or perhaps to improve at all. Which reminds me what's that chess book series of 5 volumes written by those famous Russian masters, in co-operation with a master named Benjamin, and about candidate-moves, that actually propounded the concept, ring a bell?

I'm sure that someone with thousands of blitz games would crush someone with less, logic of practice would dictate, however it's about sober, thoughtful and conscious play rather than automatic play especially in a state of driving under influence ;-) So the experience on the part of some can be one of losing by repeatedly making mistakes and blunders, and not reflecting because they're not "thinking" before they move, they're just having fun regardless of whether they develop and improve or not. I'm not having fun if I stagnate unless it's at a satisfactory above-average level : P and that said I want to cut down this post and end. To that end, chess as a mental activity workout is my rather time consuming flexible hobby, but still hobby that is an interest, it's not my passion because I have other passions and I'm not gonna invest more time in it beyond the tactics, the lessons, and the 22 daily simul tournaments and other games and conversations such as these I'm already engaging. I'm just gonna add to sammy_boi that I already apologized for the initial vagueness of the question before I updated, edited and added only after a certain amount of time passed because I have been preoccupied with the above.

mocl125

Jan 8, 2018

0

#19

Hey @DavidCharleston, you may find this study plan interesting: http://chesswinning.com/chess-study-plan-for-beginners/

It mainly focuses on tactics and theoretical things, but also makes sure to include time for you to play games as well!

DavidCharleston

Jan 8, 2018

0

#20

This is a brief reply to mocl125, the link provided is one for beginners and since I have beaten quite a few good players fair and square, I take offense to that. Should I? You seem to have an eccentric definition of a beginner if you think that that link is appropriate to the conversation and applies to me. No offense intended. I hope it's mutual however it's just the impression I got from you perhaps implying something.