The only thing that matters is annihilating the minds of opposing men (or women!) over the board. Victory at all costs, sanity included. Has Bobby taught us nothing! 
Snake oil salesman comes to mind ...
Snake oil salemen didn't provide empirical evidence.
How long have you been a Master (since what age)? I am willing to bet you started playing as a teenager and made expert (i.e., first crossed 2000) between 18 and 22, and very possibly before.
I didnt take up tourney chess until 1973 at age 20 so I got a late start . Made NM in 84 at age 31 . Then I got NM in Portugal after moving there in 97 , which came for breaking 2200 FIDE .
Snake oil salesman comes to mind ...
Snake oil salemen didn't provide empirical evidence.
How long have you been a Master (since what age)? I am willing to bet you started playing as a teenager and made expert (i.e., first crossed 2000) between 18 and 22, and very possibly before.
I didnt take up tourney chess until 1973 at age 20 so I got a late start . Made NM in 84 at age 31 . Then I got NM in Portugal after moving there in 97 , which came for breaking 2200 FIDE .
The key there is that bit about when you took up tournament chess. You probably didn't learn chess at 20, and I expect that you played and studied well prior to entering tournaments. If you played at all as a child, say, between the ages of 6 and 13, then not beginning tournament play until 20 is almost irrelevant. My interest (and MDLM's) is improving as an adult player, in particular. I learned how the pieces move in Nov./Dec. of 2007, and so I don't have benefits that someone has, especially the benefit of the reverse-engineering of a neural network that a learning youth does (or the additional couple of decades to work with). This benefit, for those who come to chess before18 or 20, is the primary reason why I have encounter people of extraordinary intellects (often physicists and mathematicians) who can't develop much chess-playing ability (because they started playing in their mid-20's), having a difficult time making it to C-Class, versus the average kid who can slap on 200 points a year from visiting a chess club twice a week.
Truly, the issue here is the difference between when one has been introduced to chess, and the degree to which one was introduced to chess prior to 18 or 20. Learning as an adult is difficult, and the climb is precipitous for adults not having an introduction to the game as a youth. This is where the Silman-MDLM debate is problematic: the focus upon the age is what is relevant, not whether program X or program Y is universally better, without a context. Truth is nourished by context, as there are few universal, context-independent truths.
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.
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
Nunn's Chess Course I hear is great.
I think I'd rather take the advice of someone who achieved over 2300 for a substantial period of time and has countless decades writing and training in chess over someone who barely scraped 2000 and then quit chess forever.
If de la Maza's version was true then chess would be a dumb game.
Things i have read said that you can get to USCF 2000 on tactics alone. But what are you going to do against that level of competition re: openings, and middlegame ideas? MDM's book says the same thing. He got to where he was on tactics, and then quit. I would rather get there slower, but with a more complete skill set. There is no get rich quick in life.
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
Excellent, I will have to dig into it. Thanks for the info.
I think I'd rather take the advice of someone who achieved over 2300 for a substantial period of time and has countless decades writing and training in chess over someone who barely scraped 2000 and then quit chess forever.
If de la Maza's version was true then chess would be a dumb game.
Things i have read said that you can get to USCF 2000 on tactics alone. But what are you going to do against that level of competition re: openings, and middlegame ideas? MDM's book says the same thing. He got to where he was on tactics, and then quit. I would rather get there slower, but with a more complete skill set. There is no get rich quick in life.
I completely agree, and, yes(!), MDLM does say the same thing in his book. I do recall seeing a game posted somewhere by a B-Class player who had blown him off the board by developing a good position; and that was just prior to the World Open he won. In those case where there is no tactical opportunity afforded by the opponent, and no tactic that presents itself by happenstance, a player like MDLM is going to be done for. However, at club play, that is rarely the case. The method is about improving in rating quickly by improving the part of one's game that induces wins and losses most regularly in club play.
Is this the part where we're all supposed to agree and say: "yes Silman and the other trainers are to be respected but MDLM has a point also"?
The thing is MDLM doesn't have any point and he never did. None of us should even know his name, he has never made any point in the chess world. Stressing or emphasizing tactics is not the same as being on the side of MDLM at all, practically every trainer does that. If MDLM had remained sensible he wouldn't ever have become "famous", he went way overboard.
Anyway, I was thinking about this earlier and effectively Alekhine, though generally correct in terms of principles (compared to Lasker), tended to play the most towards a chaotic middlegame, so Alekhine would likely have been the most tactical world champion. Nobody liked this style, to "throw the pieces up in the air" and rely on outcalculating the opponent. Fischer was against it. This is very different to playing in a flamboyant sacrificial or attacking style like Tal or often Fischer himself. It just creates a ton of work for you to figure out over the board. If you want to play like that try playing a different game involving card-counting or something. Chess should be a game of strategy.
I find Alekhine's Best Games collection quite good, especially since they put the black side facing the reader whenever Alekhine plays black. The book has some mistakes certainly but is overall instructive. He played to his strengths and one can see the influence upon Kasparov (whose style is somewhat similar.)
Here is another blog that may be of use. I have found it to be a good read so far.
http://becomingachessmaster.com/
Here is another blog that may be of use. I have found it to be a good read so far.
You wouldn't happen to also be the author of that blog would you?
DeLaMazas book is the "Pet Rock" of chess. What he offers is someething you can find anywhere. He just got people to pay for tactics, when you have that for free.
I believe tactics are important but i dont believe in Maza's method. The improvement list mentioned here 300-400 rating gain for 1000-1200 range and under 100 rating gain for higher rated trainee's. I was studying chess while all this crazyness were going on, and i claim most of that players going through maza's program and also worked on endgames and openings. I also attempted on cycle and lost rating during and after the process. For the most people it was close to zero gain. After some time about my attempt on mentioned method i gave-up chess.
From my personal experience: Learned chess from my father at age 6 (he has strength around 1300)
He had very little time to play with and most of my friends didnt know how to play chess but occasionally i played with my father without clocks one game for one night. I never won any game, but for once i made my fathers job really difficult and he praised me ( i still remember)
Found "chess essential" from capablanca read it practiced mate, find hard time at B+N mate but i tried it from time to time, there was even a time i felt i understand it. Looked for games inside occasioanlly as well.
At around age 10-11 some kids come to my school could play chess. After i seen people mostly play 1.e4 e5 2.Qf3... 3.Bc4 or something like that i lost my interest in 1.e4 and turned to 1.d4 unconciously reason behind this was probably all games started with 1.e4 was played same but when 1.d4 played every game was played different each time (less boring)
At age 12-13 i was beating all kids (4-5) around without losing a game, our school sent us all in a tournament. I got too excited the night before couldnt slept. I lost my first game quickly, i got my strength and excitement back. I made a considerable performance later (4.5/7 total) My other loss was to 2nd of national age group a year before. I was rated NR 1496.
I was 8th at tournament, our school didnt want to join the tournament again, i didnt played following year, also after tournament the kids in our school also lost interest in the game
At my first year in highschool i was concentrated in girls instead of chess. Second year i returned back to the chess because there were people can play chess in school and i was failed with the thing with girls (was handsome but too shy) I played at least 4-5 games every week without clock with my new opponents. at age 16 we joined a tournament as a highschool team. We couldnt get in place but in 2nd board if i am right i got 4.5/5 score also went to 1600 rating straight from 1496.
Because we didnt make it to the place our high school wasnt interested to join the tournament next year (you know the story)
I didnt play any chess with anyone at my level or stronger until university again.
At age 18 when i started to university i was the weakest of chess club, 1800-2200 ratings were dominating. I got outside of chess more and got in girls more. But i played occasionally and my rating flown 1580-1620 range.
A few years later i started to study chess insanely, Maza method etc thing was born, i also attempted that, in a year i managed to get as low as 1540s and quit chess
2-3 years later with getting back my phsychology i started playing chess again, didnt do anything special, just by playing 2-3 tournaments a year (or less) i made my my rating back slowly to 1650s.
Considered normal training chess, didnt made it seriously but from fun level study of normal way made my win range up to 2000 elo. That time had some problems with family and girl, got depressed gave up again for 5-6 months and restarted, i can say i am much more weaker tactically than lets say 8 years ago (before my first insane study session), also having concentration problems, and i started to blunder first time in my life, still i can claim i play much better chess than before. I have managed to get very low fide rating (1280 or so) and fixed it up to 1500s for now. Working on my concentration and pshychology rather than following some abstract attempts. Learned enjoying chess again, being able to assess my strengths and weaknesses, inside a happy relationship for more than a year, got a trainers license, performing better in tournaments.
Point: 1.Maza method made more players quit chess than it improved, the ones claims improvement was already rated too low, and they could get that improvement via normal training as well
Point: 2. While tactics is important, i don't believe maza's method is best way to improve it, being obsessed with anything is hardly recommendable, it bring more harm than anything else
Point: 3. Psychological and real life aspects of a chess player is widely ignored. Happy life, healthy lifestyle with physical exercises, being financially secure and being loved are great advantages for chess improvement. I wouldnt recognize anyone claims opposite.
Another claim i cant proove it with data but from my personal observations, working with fresh problems each time instead of repeating same ones brings better improvement.
I can talk not only about myself but also hundreds of chess players i observed.
I also believe tactics is important just against Maza's method. Silman is also not one of my favourite writers but i respect him as a person and a good chess player (probably good coach as well which i cant know). But for this issue he is very right about "killing the joy of chess" I also dont like famous "my system" but fortunately there are hundreds of chess books about every subject. You can pick a book on two criteria and can work: 1. it has to be reasonable and efficient in a way to change your chess thinking, 2. it should be fun for you to study.
Nearly all the so-called "data" for the topic is anecdotal.
The conversation flow makes that perfectly clear.
Any verities of "rigorous empiricism" flew out the window many pages ago.
Just Live With It.
Although i cant claim i am posting usefull things, regularly or at least with a regular structure. This is something close to blog of mine.
https://beingchessmaster.wordpress.com/
Snake oil salesman comes to mind ...
Snake oil salemen didn't provide empirical evidence.
How long have you been a Master (since what age)? I am willing to bet you started playing as a teenager and made expert (i.e., first crossed 2000) between 18 and 22, and very possibly before.