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.
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.
To my shame, I overlooked the reference to Milton. In my defense, I read your posts before finishing this morning's coffee and I read Milton in the 1980s.
I read MdlM's Chess Cafe synopsis of his book when it was published (c. 2003, as I recall). I started gathering 1000 problems from Polgar, Alburt, and other sources. I didn't get far with his regime due to work and family.
I was low 1400s USCF at the time.
Over the next few years, I worked through all of the 300 in Alburt's first Chess Training Pocket Book at least twice. I also read much of Averbakh's Chess Tactics for Advanced Players while falling asleep in bed over the course of several months (I read Milton and Stephen King the same way).
I also spent a fair amount of time reading Silman's books.
For my teaching of youth, I created 150 tactics problems in a series I call "checkmates and tactics" and anotehr 139 for my booklet, "A Checklist of Checkmates." I looked through far more than 1000 games to find these tactical positions.
In summer 2006, I took lessons from an NM. Most weeks 90 minutes to two hours. That fall, I broke into B Class.
In 2008, I played an FM in a match for the Spokane City Championship (I was ~500 below him) and managed one draw in three games. That year, I spend a lot of time playing positions from Reinfeld's 1001 Chess Sacrifices and Combinations against Hiarcs and Fritz.
In 2009, I broke into A Class.
It took me nine years to go from low 1400s to high 1900s, and a little more than a year to drop back into the high 1800s.
That's not as impressive as 400 points in 400 days, but I am more excited about chess today than I was ten years ago.
MdlM has an Expert rating, but not an Expert level title--something the USCF now awards, but did not when he was playing. He has an A Class floor.
Encyclopedia of Chess Combinations is terrific, and yes, the problems are tough. Here's a sample: http://chessskill.blogspot.com/2015/03/sacrifice-everything.html
IF you learned chess at a young age, played a bit during high school, took up competitive chess before the age of 35 years old, and have learned how to study (i.e. college degree or better) then I believe --
You can reach your "natural playing strength" in about 1-2 years of reasonably hard work at the Royal Game.
It varies by person. Unfortunately, you won't find substantive empiricism on this issue.
There ain't none, sorry. The data are largely anecdotal.
USCF 1800 rating is typically the mid-point (and cut-off point) between the Open Section and Lower Sections of most USCF tourneys.
But an 1800 rating is the 90th percentile of active USCF members.
Given the standard "body of knowledge" that you must imbibe, and know cold, in order to achieve USCF B Class, or even USCF A Class, how many competitors actually achieve these rating classes?
ONLY about 20 percent of active tournament players in the U.S. ever reach these playing levels.
P.S. Chess players are thoroughly eccentric, obsessed with the game, and represent a rather small (and fluctuating) sample size. The idea that substantive empiricism might be available is (probably) just a pipe dream from early 20th century empiricist philosophy. Sorry to inform.
If you're starting as an adult, and older than 30 years, you could make USCF B Class, maybe USCF A Class. Perhaps higher, like de la Maza, but he was an outlier. Ultimately it depends on how much of your life you wish to devote to this experiment.
But you will have a rough "empirical answer" within 2 years of serious study. Indeed, for some people it might take many more years. Brain plasticity at young ages appears to count for quite a lot in chess. But that too is poorly measured.
That's my personal perspective and experience. No more, no less.
John Nunn's many publications are also recommended. He's good with "big-picture," quasi-philosophical limitations of the Royal Game. His Oxford Ph.D. in mathematics probably helps with his personal pursuit of Verity, in all its guises.
Or you can hire a stable of coaches, and redouble your efforts.
Indeed, that's what you already claim to be doing. Good Luck With It.