Outcome of de la Maza's Seven Circles Program

He won't do it kco.

There IS magic in the number 7.

Yeah, this is the kind of response I was trying to avoid.

You people overhype the hell out of Heisman. 

If you know him in person like i do, you will realize that he is nothing special and if you are rated above 1500, his material is not for you. 

       So what are you saying?  Heisman is for beginners, or La Maza is for beginners?

Funny thing to post in a topic about MdlM when the only time Heisman was mentioned was to promote MdlM lol.

Basically, if you want to stumble around in the dark with delusions that your losses are due to some inability to create amazing plans and strategies, follow Ziryab.  You could be a half decent amateur in a mere decade!

On the other hand, the reality is anyone under 2000 is dropping pieces (plenty over 2000 are too...).  You're not going to create some masterpiece when you can't even get the basics right.

Serious improvement at the adult level is rare - this is a method that can offer that and the idea that it makes you hate chess is just grade A bull.  It worked for me, I don't hate chess and whilst I have no wish to engage in a pointless comparison contest, I have a well rounded and content life. 

Most people are going to waste a decade, or two, or three... hopping from one thing to the next with no reward - what's 400s compared to that?

Yes Lee. You'd never be an expert. Now please leave that MdlM stuff before you go crazy. I don't wanna lose a friend.

'Outta left field' came to mind when I read his (umirin) comment.

Heisman's comments regarding MdlM are generous. The link is interesting reading. 

Where do you get this nonsense? Seriously, I think you are confusing me with someone else.

Now, we're getting somewhere. You used MdlM's seven circles! Tell your story. Contribute something positive to this thread.

I've watched many start his program and give up. Stories of success are not common.

Tactical knowledge is essential and will rapidly improve your playing strength, in principle.

Endgame knowledge is doubly essential, and will produce many wins.

But if you don't acquire a decent knowledge of at least a universal opening sytem, (or a decent opening repetoire), your chances of reaching a level middlegame or level endgame are not good.

And you will likely lose, repeatedly.

Playing into opening systems whose theory is gigantically complicated might make you a stronger player (IN THE LONG RUN).  But you will still get chewed up in novel middlegame positions with crazy tactical complications.

So study Nesis's books on exchanging, and blast you way into a level endgame.  Only then should you play for a win.

Tactics (including endgame tactics) will take you to whatever you level is "your natural playing strength."  Whatever USCF Class that might be.

The OP claims he uses a stable of coaches, and has a 1600-1700 Blitz rating on this site.

IMHO, he wastes his time playing Game in 5/0,  without an increment.  At this speed, his openings look like "book" (up to 20 or 30 moves deep), but his endings have entirely too many errors.  Probably because of time pressure.

Whatever time control allows YOU to "practice effectively," then you should add an increment, and combine that time control with your ongoing chess studies.

OTB is different kettle of fish.  But many of these same principles will apply there as well.

What is your view of the extreme pragmatism that you must use, so that YOU will win more games ?

This is the same question John Nunn asks about former WCC Lasker, in Nunn's latest book.

That's the same question that de la Maza, and everyone in this thread is trying to answer.

The answer is PERSONAL, just like one's taste in Opening Systems.

So get with YOUR program.  You must make one yourself, or hire a stable of coaches.

If you just could read the post above you would find that i already said i tried and it resulted me losing points. Also made me quit chess for a while.

It worked for me, though I certainly didn't do it for 400 days.  I was 1685 in July when I started, next tournament (September) my performance was 2137  (3/5 vs 2000-ish).  Next two tournaments were 2000 or so performances, in March I beat my first FM.  I didn't read any other books during this period, take lessons or study openings.  I played as much as I could and solved tactics when I could, that's it.  

You claim stories of success are not common, yet I haven't seen anyone who's stuck at it and not improved.  And there are plenty people who've tried other things and not improved ie. most people!

You quit chess like 17 times for a variety of reasons.  Did the weather make you quit chess too?

Success with general tactics training is normal and frequent. We are discussing M. de la Maza's "seven circles". Apparently, you don't really understand his program.

I didn't get 400 points, but when I was playing tournaments, after about 4 months with CT-ART, I managed to be 2 legitimate A class players while rated 1400 (my rating clearly was lagging way behind my improvement curve.) I def wasn't' a "A" class player though - the limitations of all tactics does show up in various positions. 

If you closed the position on me, I got my rear handed to me like a total beginner 1100 player, even with my tactics back then. Once the A-B class players saw that I had good tactics after those two wins, EVERYONE played d4 and the stonewall or similar blocked games against me, and I had no idea how to proceed. (I still don't, actually.)

Would you care to elaborate on how I didn't follow his programme?

"Tactics" worked fine for me, too.  Added about 500 points to my OTB rating in only 9 months.

But I had learned the game as a kid, and took it up again with a vengence, before I become too old.

So what.  Everyone's experience will be different.

Above USCF 1800, you will need a qualitative change in your studies.  Endgame knowledge is much more important.  And everyone plays well with the black pieces.

The 10 percent of USCF tournament player (above 1800) account for fully 50 percent of all tournament games played.

They are very busy guys.  And they are NOT easy to beat.    

Note to self: Play the Stonewall against hhnngg1 and don't open the position.