Outcome of de la Maza's Seven Circles Program

Read Page # 2 of that thread.

If it ain't on the first page, it ain't worth reading.

Miss out then.

There's visible blood so it wasn't cooked Kosher.

Yuck.

Bloody cow flesh yummyumm yummyumm

I'll try it someday. Next Eid-ul-Azha.

I think there's value in drilling tactics MDLM style beyond the basic Bain level that Heisman recommends.  I did that for several books way past Bain and felt like it was worthwhile through Ivaschenko 1b.  I felt like I learned an idea or two with each book.  I'm pretty much done with hardcore tactics drills though.  One year is more than enough to drive you insane.

The most fair critique of MDLM is the fact that he pimped tactics heavily, but did a lot more than just tactical training to get to expert level.  I don't know if it was intentional, but it seems like chess players are dishonest when they discuss what training actually helped them improve.

I'm not sure sure it is dishonesty. I think that most cannot really explain WHY they got so good. Plenty of people do the same things but with much less success. So there are defintely other factors they cannot explain.

I agree with MDLM when it comes to beginners staying away from Silman.  Look no further than this forum and you see people giving out awful advice like studying Silman and Dvoretsky to get better.  A 1200 isn't going to improve much studying those vs tactical training.  It's a waste of time.

I think "lock yourself in your room with CT Art and you'll get to expert" sounds a lot more flashy and fun than "Go to your local chess club every week, analyze your games with all of the masters and play 100 games a year". The former is what he sold and the latter is what he actually did. 

And even the people who take up the tactical training program and improve overlook the fact that they did spend years studying endgames, opening, strategy etc.  It's just now they can actually use that knowledge instead of dropping a piece on move 20.

Tactics are the base of the chess food pyramid, I won't deny that.  I also agree that it's hard for chess players to understand why they got better.

Interesting discussion...

Enjoy your blog posts, Milliern! The Dante references put MdlM's system in proper context.

I tried to post a recommendation on one of your posts: Lev Alburt, Chess Training Pocket Book. These are my core tactics books:

BTW, my criticism of MdlM, which might put me in the "haters" group, is two-fold:

1) He exaggerates downward the level of his skill when he started the program. His standard rating was barely out of provisional, and not well-established. He played in a strong club, where learning positional concepts would be unavoidable. His quick chess rating (provisional) was much higher than his standard USCF at the onset.

2) He quit chess. 

Blogspot appears to be having issues right now, but Temposchlucker kept track of the Knights errant rating progress here:

http://temposchlucker.blogspot.com/2005/05/ratingprogress-of-knights-errant.html

You can see that the folks who started at the low end benefited greatly from MDLM training.

In terms of blogs going dark... well how many people who played chess 10 years ago are still active today?  The average lifespan of a chessplayer has to be less than 10 years.

Snake oil salesman comes to mind ... 

What sort of issues?

I'm getting 500+ reads per day on http://chessskill.blogspot.com/

Issues as in "I'm having trouble reaching it right now".  Might not be a problem globally.

Yes, there is some empirical evidence for one, as provided in the blog post, but not the other, Silman's.  I definitely agree with kleeof on the distinct natures of the two varieties of training.  However, the degree to which Silman's program increases a club players ability and, more importantly, how quickly it increases a club player's rating have not been empirically examined.  Anecdotally, I know of a group of (about) 1200-level adult players at the Pittsburgh Chess Club ( two were sub-1200, one was a bit over 1200, and one who was dancing back and forth about 1400) who studied the "Reassess Your Chess" system and "Amateur's Mind."  This was in 2008-2009.  Collectively, they have gained, to date, 400 points collectively, over 6-7 years, and they only gained 100 points, collectively, during that year.  (I mention the subsequent point-yield, because I can see that Silman is planting seeds through his method.)  I do not doubt that Silman is creating solid chess players, but the fact remains that there is no evidence that suggests that his training methods are more beneficial to, say, a sub-Expert or sub-A-Class player.

What I want to know, for the benefit of know how and what to study in order to continue to grow efficiently, is what the empirical evidence is for any arbitrarily made claim.  I am dealing in empiricism, and, without some sort of even loose study to go off of, your claims are matters of faith.  Maybe you can do a study of Silman's stuff, determine a metric, and then share your results.  Until then, you are merely opining, loose and fast --and verity has no consort with opinions.

Hi, James.  Thanks for the comments, here and on my blog.  Did you catch the "Paradise Lost" reference.  ;-) Love Dante...love Milton more.  Shame on me, I know.

Yeah, I know your position, and that's no problem.  You are also a strong player who probably has nothing to gain from MDLM.

How do you like the Encyclopedia of Combinations?  I saw you mention it in another forum post, and I am intrigued at hwo there could be such an encyclopedia.  Heisman doesn't mention it, so I am guessing we aren't talking about basic, bare-bones patterns, just GM combinations, right?

I am not sure your complaints about MDLM are legitimate concerns.  First, he beat one unrated player, and that fellow's provisional rating reflected only 5 USCF games, all of which he lost, and so had a provisional rating of about 400 points lower than the field.  MDLM got a 1600-level provisional rating by beating someone who never won a USCF game!  On the second point, he said that he quit chess, because serious work was needed to improve.  As a titled player (if Experts are considered titled), he really stunk as a general chess player.  Many games against A-Class players (and I think some in his book) were in horrible positions, which finally yielded a mating net or material gain through tactics.  His game was unsound, and he admitted that.  His point was that being below Expert (or maybe A-Class, because I think he exaggerated a bit...I think ability plays a role) is representative of lack of tactical knowledge, basic tactical calculation ability, pattern recognition, and tactical vision.  I think his otherwise crappy play illustrate that tactics are definitely the way to go, if one is below, say, 1800, and probably the way to go for many players under 2100.