Outcome of de la Maza's Seven Circles Program

I study tactics every day. I do not study tactics according to the method advocated by Michael de la Maza.

THAT YOU ARE TOO LAZY TO READ THE THREAD DOES NOT GIVE YOU LICENSE TO OFFER YOUR TWO-BIT PSYCHOANALYSIS.

You clearly do not know the topic of this thread.

Let me spell it out for Wagnastic and any other hardheaded readers.

My vision of a raft occupied by refugees is basic sociology, and not grounded in the sort of personal experience that could produce regrets. I became aware of M. de la Maza's program when he presented the core of his program in two articles for Chess Cafe. I was intrigued by his claims and his success.

M. de la Maza seized my attention. I considered his program carefully. What tactics problems would I use? When would I begin? I looked at the calendar and plotted a course.

Sense kicked in. I remembered that I cherish a balanced life: chess and fishing, romance with my wife, time with my children--human, feline, and canine. I considered also MdlM's disparaging remarks about Jeremy Silman, whose books I was beginning to find useful.

I opted for another course.

Several years later, when I started a chess blog (http://chessskill.blogspot.com/), I took a look at other chess blogs. The Knights Errant (a group of bloggers trying to implement MdlM's program) were ubiquitous. I put several of these bloggers on my blogroll.

I watched their progress. A few gained 100 Elo. One or two gained 200 points.

My USCF rating continued to rise steadily through my eclectic approach. Every few months, I would check my blogroll and delete blogs that had no posts in the past year. Over time, the Knights Errant disappeared from blogosphere.

I was not surprised. M. de la Maza quit chess before the ink dried on the pages of his book.

NO. I'm not bitter. RATHER, I'm a student of human nature. I laugh at folly. Nonetheless, I feel the pain of those who abandoned chess because they embarked on a quest with a poorly drawn map.

nice comments 

People should keep in mind that what he writes about in his book WORKED FOR HIM. He is really only sharing what HE DID. As with any book written about chess, the results are only guaranteed for the author.

Well there you go, is no good for us !

So this thread is only about him?

He quit chess. Thread closed.

Thanks.

Yeah, I'd bet 9 out of 10 players rated over 1800 have followed a daily tactics regimen at one point or another. I know I certainly have, more than a few times.

Disagreeing with MdlM isn't disagreeing with tactics, not at all. Most disagree with him for a few reasons though:

1: The entire book's useful content rightly fills the space of an article.
2: His personal story and disdain concerning strategy are at best misleading and at worst a lie for the sake of marketing.
3: The method is not practical.

As it happens, the most popular post on my blog documents precisely that. http://chessskill.blogspot.com/2012/04/training-log-taxing-efforts.html.

A different regimen a few years earlier is discussed in http://chessskill.blogspot.com/2008/11/where-rubber-meets-road.html.

I agree with your synopsis.

Not sure if you and KCO are just being smart or missed the point of my comment. I will assume you guys are just trying to be funny.

But, just in case:

What I meant was that MdlM gained (supposedly) 400 points in less than 2 years. He followed a system he customized to his own learning needs. And as such, it may not work as well for others.

More than once in this thread, and the thread I posted on this topic, I've heard comments like this.

Do you by chance have any links to his comments about his book and material written by others?

I ask mainly because this seems to contridict what Dan Heisman claims MdlM said to him about his own progress.

BTW Ziryab, nice blog.

As it turns out, my last tactics training ended in burn out. I'll be sure to check out your articles there.

Some missionaries showed up at my door this afternoon. They wanted to give me some literature. I made no effort to quiet my dogs.

The point: MdlM did not write an autobiography. He sold a book idea to a publisher because they could sell books to ambitious adults. The prgram is designed to help others. It has no record of success, save the author's own. 

He no longer plays chess.

I teach chess to third graders in full knowledge that they will almost all quit by seventh grade. I teach skills they have a good chance of retaining when they take up the game again when they have children.

MdlM has a different approach to teaching. He's not really a teacher, though.

The real question: did his book sales fund his travel to tournaments? Chess books don't usually sell that well. 

You should teach them the phrase 'balls rex!'.

Hmm, is it this?

http://www.chess.com/article/view/the-michael-de-la-maza-story

I didn't read anything here I disagree with. Maybe point out to me where I seem to disagree?

By the way, my basic assumption is this: MdlM had a weak link, which was blunder checking and tactics. Unfortunately for him, this has the biggest direct impact on your rating. Therefore when he became a well rounded player, he increased his rating. Note Heisman said MdlM read a number of books, not just Silman, and even did some light opening work (not making the same mistakes twice).

Therefore I would say MdlM's characterization of Silman and by extension strategy is disingenuous, and merely to market his book.

kleelof wrote:

People should keep in mind that what he writes about in his book WORKED FOR HIM. He is really only sharing what HE DID. As with any book written about chess, the results are only guaranteed for the author.

Lee! I told you it won't work. Stop wasting your time on that book.

In the article, there is this quote:

"Dan, I think I have shown that what I wrote can work. I have become a fairly strong player by following the methods explained in my book. But I think that's as far as those basic things can take me. To get to the next level, I would have to really learn how to play chess - advanced strategy and the like - that's something that would take some real work, and I don't think I want to do it. So I'm going to retire from chess!"

To me, this does not sound like 'disdain conderning tactics'. Sounds more like disinterest.

Anyway, I am not trying to defend him or start an argument of symantics here. I was not involved in chess when this book was first published, so it is difficult to know what he actually said or how what he said should be framed.

I would be willing to bet it definitely wont gain him 400 points in 400 days.

But at the same time I'd bet it will make him a better player... although I'd do it just a bit differently than MdlM... I believe the last iteration has you doing tactics for something like 8 hours? Or in any case all 1000 puzzles? That's just silly.

One thing I believe in, is being honest with yourself. Study isn't a number of pages, or the title, or even the content. It's what gets into your head. As a student, be honest with what's getting into you head. If a tactical pattern is still odd, difficult, surprising, etc, then memorize it. Test yourself every week. Seek out other puzzles with the same pattern. Create your own puzzles with that pattern. etc.

In your next game, maybe you miss a certain type of tactic or mating idea. Follow it up like the above. Try to get it into your head so to speak. Yeah it sucks players like Carlsen probably absorbed it so fast he didn't even realize it. Too bad we can't improve that fast, but rushing only slows us down. Similarly following a blueprint can in some cases distract us from what we are an aren't learning. My advice is to ignore MdlM and pay attention to your head :p

Oh, and if 7 iterations is working for you, go for it! But there's nothing magic in the number 7. Simply repeat it until you get it and then test yourself later to help retention.

kleelof, get off the chess.com and come back in 400 days and then tell us how did it go.

Ah, well, I think we have a different view of what advanced strategy is.

IMO Silman lays a groundwork, and gives the student some steel frame on which to start building... really excellent, but nothing advanced. It can be used to explain advanced strategy, but the meat of the book is basics, which I can't believe MdlM somehow expunged from his mind while studying tactics.

I believe MdlM had that feeling everyone gets from time to time... that the players a few hundred points above me REALLY know how to play, while I'm more or less clueless. This feeling would have been all the more acute if he were what he claims, above all tactically proficient. He would be able to feel his opponent's pressure, only to win due to his opponent's tactical blunder.