I bet if I worked on analyzing and then memorizing 1000 selected games (many from world championships, famous tournaments, candidates matches, etc) that I'd improve a good deal.
The point of contention both here and with MdlM, I imagine, is how efficient it is compared to other methods. Not just for rating gain in the short term, but also how well rounded it is, allowing for smooth improvement in the future.
I bet if I worked on analyzing and then memorizing 1000 selected games (many from world championships, famous tournaments, candidates matches, etc) that I'd improve a good deal.
The point of contention both here and with MdlM, I imagine, is how efficient it is compared to other methods. Not just for rating gain in the short term, but also how well rounded it is, allowing for smooth improvement in the future.
Since significant improvement at the adult level is practically non-existant, "short term rating gain" is not to be sneered at.
What now?
I bet if I worked on analyzing and then memorizing 1000 selected games (many from world championships, famous tournaments, candidates matches, etc) that I'd improve a good deal.
The point of contention both here and with MdlM, I imagine, is how efficient it is compared to other methods. Not just for rating gain in the short term, but also how well rounded it is, allowing for smooth improvement in the future.
Since significant improvement at the adult level is practically non-existant, "short term rating gain" is not to be sneered at.
Heh, true. Not that I think the book is good, but IF an adult can gain 400 points in about a year, I have nothing bad to say about it.
I bet if I worked on analyzing and then memorizing 1000 selected games (many from world championships, famous tournaments, candidates matches, etc) that I'd improve a good deal.
The point of contention both here and with MdlM, I imagine, is how efficient it is compared to other methods. Not just for rating gain in the short term, but also how well rounded it is, allowing for smooth improvement in the future.
My suspicion is that, for adults, developing an incredible mental database of tactical patterns and ability to recognize patterns augments other more traditional kinds of study.
Since significant improvement at the adult level is practically non-existant, "short term rating gain" is not to be sneered at.
I completely agree. During my two years of tournament chess, I trained at the Pittsburgh Chess Club. Of all the adult players who consistantly came in and studied, few of them showed any noticable improvement, including those players I mentioned earlier, who studied Silman's stuff.
I bet if I worked on analyzing and then memorizing 1000 selected games (many from world championships, famous tournaments, candidates matches, etc) that I'd improve a good deal.
The point of contention both here and with MdlM, I imagine, is how efficient it is compared to other methods. Not just for rating gain in the short term, but also how well rounded it is, allowing for smooth improvement in the future.
My suspicion is that, for adults, developing an incredible mental database of tactical patterns and ability to recognize patterns augments other more traditional kinds of study.
Well, except I think it is a traditional kind of study. MdlM's rants about how traditional study is strategic study are misplaced, and contribute to the snake oil salesman feel.
Nearly every coach and strong player will tell you tactics are very important. Written almost 50 years before rapid chess improvement, the back cover of 1001 Winning Chess Sacrifices and Combinations reads:
"The first step towards mastery is to become familiar with the different types of tactical motifs. The second step is to study a great many examples of these tactical themes. This book fills the need for both. It will add to your knowledge, making you a strong chess player, and it will delight you with some of the most beautiful moves ever played on the chessboard."
I wonder if anyone is going to claim they tried it and didn't improve.
More likely, there should be a raft full of divorced, unemployed males who learned to hate chess while even their dogs came to believe that chess is all they care about.
I wonder if anyone is going to claim they tried it and didn't improve.
More likely, there should be a raft full of divorced, unemployed males who learned to hate chess while even their dogs came to believe that chess is all they care about.
You don't sound bitter. At all!
I wonder if anyone is going to claim they tried it and didn't improve.
More likely, there should be a raft full of divorced, unemployed males who learned to hate chess while even their dogs came to believe that chess is all they care about.
This is probably more accurate. Tactical training is tedious and the practical rewards are non-existent. At the end of the day, all you did was improve your ability to be good at a game. RoI is much better in poker. It's still a game, but you could actually generate income.
I wonder if anyone is going to claim they tried it and didn't improve.
More likely, there should be a raft full of divorced, unemployed males who learned to hate chess while even their dogs came to believe that chess is all they care about.
This is probably more accurate. Tactical training is tedious and the practical rewards are non-existent. At the end of the day, all you did was improve your ability to be good at a game. RoI is much better in poker. It's still a game, but you could actually generate income.
Haha, yes, hard work is tedious. Endgames and opening theory are tedious too, right? I don't think laziness is a valid excuse for something not working. If you don't want to get better at chess, that's fine, lots of people don't. You seem to be in the wrong place though.
Wagnastic, you are way off. I do spend inordinate time on chess, am getting better, and am happily married, employed, and have dogs who know they are first in my life. However, I am not working the system the produced burnout and one thin book for an MIT grad.
Wagnastic, you are way off. I do spend inordinate time on chess, am getting better, and am happily married, employed, and have dogs who know they are first in my life. However, I am not working the system the produced burnout and one thin book for an MIT grad.
How am I way off? Do you honestly think your sneering comment about divored, unemployed males who hate chess doesn't sound bitter?
It works for some people, others prefer to stumble around for a decade or so to get the same end result. To each their own. But to pretend "TACTICS LEADS TO DIVORCE" is impressive, even for this site.
Changing the subject a bit, I think it's been mentioned before, but (at least it's been said) many adult beginners are drawn to the strategic aspects of the game. And while sparkling combinations are exciting for most, the calculation required to build those skills is quite tedious. So most adults (and most players in general) have a glass ceiling due to the lack of certain calculation based habits.
So for this reason too I disagree with MdlM's contention that the blame is on authors and coaches for struggling adults. Although, perhaps accidentally, his method would likely remedy this problem.
Correct, but rather obvious I think 
I wonder if anyone is going to claim they tried it and didn't improve.
More likely, there should be a raft full of divorced, unemployed males who learned to hate chess while even their dogs came to believe that chess is all they care about.
This is probably more accurate. Tactical training is tedious and the practical rewards are non-existent. At the end of the day, all you did was improve your ability to be good at a game. RoI is much better in poker. It's still a game, but you could actually generate income.
Haha, yes, hard work is tedious. Endgames and opening theory are tedious too, right? I don't think laziness is a valid excuse for something not working. If you don't want to get better at chess, that's fine, lots of people don't. You seem to be in the wrong place though.
Wut?
I wonder if anyone is going to claim they tried it and didn't improve.
I am waiting for this, as well.