Good explanations on long term memory and tactics training.
http://empiricalrabbit.blogspot.com/2011/02/lessons-from-supermemo.html
http://empiricalrabbit.blogspot.com/2010/11/lessons-from-cognitive-psychology.html
Yeah, that's helpful material, which i had read previously. It's unfortunate that the person no longer writes (or writes under a different blog name).
You are a strange and not very sensible man Milliern. One minute saying one thing, the next going completely against that.
What about Averbakh's Tactics for Advanced Players? One can never learn the art of the double attack well enough! The book also comes with plenty of good exercises.
Tal's Life and Games is a classic worth reading too. I'm currently working my way up to Dvoretsky's Analytical Manual, that's probably the hardest book on calculation out there and is recommended to those 2200 FIDE and above. The way to find out if we're CM strength in calculation of course is to outcalculate such players consistently. When all skills seem somewhat equal calculation and endgame technique seem like the best skills to bump up first followed by positional understanding, defence, and openings.
Attacking skills improve organically if we study calculation, positional elements, and even endgames since we won't incorrectly reject embarking on an attack if we find it'll give us a better endgame since we'd be able to assess the position at the end of the calculation properly. Sure hopefully the opponent will drop a piece or even get mated with a poor defence, but he likely won't so the positional or endgame advantage gained from such an attack is a great reward and should even be the primary motivation for such.
I don't even care about tactics anymore. I need to invent the 7 circles of positional training.
Convekta has a good package deal on strategic programs, but it's Convekta so be aware of its terrible optimization.
Wangtastic wrote: Hi! I'm 2100 FIDE. You? 
He definitely is 2100 FIDE; looking at his games they have expert quality. Very good technique and openings and good understanding of the middlegame.
TheGreatOogieBoogie wrote:
What about Averbakh's Tactics for Advanced Players? One can never learn the art of the double attack well enough! The book also comes with plenty of good exercises.
Tal's Life and Games is a classic worth reading too. I'm currently working my way up to Dvoretsky's Analytical Manual, that's probably the hardest book on calculation out there and is recommended to those 2200 FIDE and above. The way to find out if we're CM strength in calculation of course is to outcalculate such players consistently. When all skills seem somewhat equal calculation and endgame technique seem like the best skills to bump up first followed by positional understanding, defence, and openings.
Attacking skills improve organically if we study calculation, positional elements, and even endgames since we won't incorrectly reject embarking on an attack if we find it'll give us a better endgame since we'd be able to assess the position at the end of the calculation properly. Sure hopefully the opponent will drop a piece or even get mated with a poor defence, but he likely won't so the positional or endgame advantage gained from such an attack is a great reward and should even be the primary motivation for such.
Thank you TheGreatOogieBoogie, an excellent illustration even strong player still need to study tactics.
@ Milliern, I am not advocating MDLM but you have three experts (TheGreatOogieBoogie, Wangtastic and yureesystem) stating one should study tactics and the rest disagree with us. My senior master friend (2400 uscf and higher) advice me to study tactics and endgame, he never mention strategy or opening; I think I should follow his advice than not master level. You will improve if you devote some time on tactics and if have more time strategy; but as adults we might not have time to devote a lot time to chess and we have to pick and tactics will give good results. Once you become proficient on tactics, you can study strategy and endgame. I was very fortunate to start serious chess at seventeen and could devote more time and that is why I improve so quickly and became expert at twenty.
Thegreatoogieboogie is a reliable and actual good player, he does not subscribe to MDLM whatsoever.
yureesystem is a shit player.
Wangtastic is the closest we have to being a MDLM poster boy, however he has refused all types of authentication or verification methods. He should surely be NM eligible with that FIDE rating, so he could get that verified on chess.com easily and anonymously.
Thegreatoogieboogie is a reliable and actual good player, he does not subscribe to MDLM whatsoever.
yureesystem is a shit player.
Wangtastic is the closest to being a MDLM poster boy, however he has refused all types of authentication or verification methods.
I asked what proof you wanted - driver's license? Credit cards? Would you like me to come to your house and provide DNA?
Thegreatoogieboogie is a reliable and actual good player, he does not subscribe to MDLM whatsoever.
yureesystem is a shit player.
Wangtastic is the closest to being a MDLM poster boy, however he has refused all types of authentication or verification methods.
I asked what proof you wanted - driver's license? Credit cards? Would you like me to come to your house and provide DNA?
A FIDE card for example, plenty of people have posted their names with their FIDE cards. You could also get yourself titled on chess.com if you're indeed a national master.
Fide titles start from 2200 (CM)
Fide titles start from 2200 (CM)
Yes and NMs are typically easier to get than FMs.
Uhohspaghettio1 wrote:
Hey hey hey. Who are you talking to?
You were agreeing with me yesterday.
Are you honestly calling him, the guy going against all established theory, all chess trainers and development programmes, the Soviet School of Chess and everyone who has ever had major success in the history of time and you're calling him sensible?
Get a grip. and think before you speak. That guy could be a cheater and should show his credentials if he's going to go around using them as some sort of proof of his opinions.
Boy, you are an angry person. Name calling and thinking you know something about chess. Soviet school, please, you don't anything about the Soviet school of chess. In all your argument you did not name one positional concept but I did, good knight versus bad bishop and opposite color bishops, especially in the middlegame the player having the active opposite color bishop is like having an extra piece and can't be oppose. I study Nimzovitch, Capablanca, Euwe, Lasker, Chernov,Botvinnik,Karpov and my personal favorite Pachman on strategy and positional concepts. I bet you did not over any book on strategy, it really show in your games. You are a duffer without any chess knowledge, You stated your otb rating, maybe your are too ashame to mention it.
Uhohspaghettio1 wrote:
Hey hey hey. Who are you talking to?
You were agreeing with me yesterday.
Are you honestly calling him, the guy going against all established theory, all chess trainers and development programmes, the Soviet School of Chess and everyone who has ever had major success in the history of time and you're calling him sensible?
Get a grip. and think before you speak. That guy could be a cheater and should show his credentials if he's going to go around using them as some sort of proof of his opinions.
Boy, you are an angry person. Name calling and thinking you know something about chess. Soviet school, please, you don't anything about the Soviet school of chess. In all your argument you did not name one positional concept but I did, good knight versus bad bishop and opposite color bishops, especially in the middlegame the player having the active opposite color bishop is like having an extra piece and can't be oppose. I study Nimzovitch, Capablanca, Euwe, Lasker, Chernov,Botvinnik,Karpov and my personal favorite Pachman on strategy and positional concepts. I bet you did not over any book on strategy, it really show in your games. You are a duffer without any chess knowledge, You stated your otb rating, maybe your are too ashame to mention it.
Lies, nonsense and taking the exact opposite position you had before.
Uhohspaghettio1 wrote: yureesystem is a shit player.
lol Name calling will make your argument more valid. I play against experts and masters and you? So mr. name caller please share your otb rating and your wealth of chess knowledge,and please give me an advance chess concept.
Uhohspaghettio wrote: Lies, nonsense and taking the exact opposite position you had before.
I stated before, I am a well rounded expert, meaning I did study strategy and positional concepts. I am saying in this forum tactics will bring rapid improvement. I am not like Micheal DeLa Maza, only tactics. But if you don't have time, tactics bring you quick result in your game. I think a lot of player would rather win than lose and tactics is easy way to bring those resullts.
Good explanations on long term memory and tactics training.
http://empiricalrabbit.blogspot.com/2011/02/lessons-from-supermemo.html
http://empiricalrabbit.blogspot.com/2010/11/lessons-from-cognitive-psychology.html