Outcome of de la Maza's Seven Circles Program

If you're taking 6 minutes to solve a problem, it's too hard for you (in reference to tactical training).  It's not worthless or a waste of time, it still helps improve your calculation but it's important to work on both skills.

 Personally, I'd work on 90% tactics (simple, no more than 3 movers, easy) and 10% calculation problems (harder, strings of tactics, as far as you can calculate).  As you improve this should swing further towards calculation problems whilst increasing the difficulty of your simple tactics, until it's 50-50.

There seems to be a lot of confusion between tactics and calculation and whilst it's true you use the same tool (puzzles) to improve both skills, it is important to remember they're different.

Thanks again.

If you use more than 5 minutes on a problem, you will probably not spot in a game. Normally, you should spot it in 30 secounds or less and then double check, for tactics you know, and you will be able to see in games.

In order to learn the pattern, spending some time trying to figure it out helps.  That's how you learn it.  That's why I'd say you should spend 5 minutes the first time on a problem then move on.  Successive tries should take less time when trying to recall what you learned until eventually the answer comes quickly.  

I don't recommend spending 5 minutes on a problem after the first try.

Perhaps if you used the term "pattern recognition," rather than tactics, it would be easier to distinguish what you're talking about from calculation. 

In any case, the program that you are describing appears consistent with how Dan Heisman says that he would modify M. de la Maza's program. That should make it attractive to many readers here.

For such training, the basic problems in the Chessimo app seem better suited than CT-ART (MdlM's recommended software).

kleelof wrote:

Cobblers. 

Mindlessly training tactics is what's "easy", the type you can and will sometimes do automatom without even thinking. That's why they're popular with a certain type of crowd, because it's so easy to do it. Studying strategies in a meaningful way, that's where it gets difficult. 

"training tactics", all you are doing is like sharpening a sword. You're not making a better sword, just sharpening the one you have. It's useful only for the short-term future until you need to resharpen it again.  

In fact, you could train tactics just as efficiently just by playing blitz. Blitz has actual combinations coming up at pretty much the same rate as in regular play. For any combinations that you miss your opponent's pulling those combinations on you should get you used to them.    

Uhohspagehegettio1 wrote: 

Cobblers. 

Mindlessly training tactics is what's "easy", the type you can and will sometimes do automatom without even thinking. That's why they're popular with a certain type of crowd, because it's so easy to do it. Studying strategies in a meaningful way, that's where it gets difficult. 

"training tactics", all you are doing is like sharpening a sword. You're not making a better sword, just sharpening the one you have. It's useful only for the short-term future until you need to resharpen it again.  

In fact, you could train tactics just as efficiently just by playing blitz. Blitz has actual combinations coming up at pretty much the same rate as in regular play. For any combinations that you miss your opponent's pulling those combinations on you should get you used to them.    

 I play chess to win and try not to lose. I am also played a lot higher rated players and with strong players if you miss an tactical opportunity, you never get a second chance. Mindless maybe for you but in most game tactics and endgame decided the game not strategy, if you poor endgame technique, you can lose a draw position. My favorite players a lack of chess knowledge, to win a game because my opponent doesn't know how to draw a draw position, well I love it. Yes, study all your strategy books and I win the game by a few tactical blows. It is a fact computers beat grandmaster because computer are strong in tactics; even grandmaster's positional pattern recognition and they still lose to computers. They beat Kasparov, Kramnik, Micheal Adams and there was a match were a computer give odds to a GM a pawn and a move and won the match and did not lose one game. Superior tactics and endgame technique will win more games, the reason players don't do this because it is WORK ( it is bad word for most players).

There is a reason tactics alone will get you to 2000, but no further.  Tactics are the $500 car with $5000 rims.  You look good, but the rest is a piece of trash.

A computer is completely different to a human. You can't say "well if a computer can win by tactics alone why can't I?!", that's nonsensical. A computer is doing what it's optimized to do. You may as well say: "a computer can do math calculations faster than any human by using binary digits, so therefore me calculating by binary digits would be a good idea."  

The lower the standard of play - including playing blitz play - the more tactics come into it. So training tactics might give good blitz results fast as it has quicker feedback, but over a long game both sides will have time to work out all relevant tactics in 95%+ of positions. Then it gets down to "do you prefer this position or this position", and if you don't have a clue and make poor choices you're in trouble. If you're making positional errors all the time you'll be positionally choked until your position is hopeless.  

"Tactics" will only get you to the level of YOUR "natural playing strength."

Whatever level that might be for YOU, not for that chess prodigy next to you.

It ain't the Holy Grail.  Sorry.

Study the following (intensely), ALONG WITH his two books that came before it --

http://www.amazon.com/John-Nunns-Chess-Course-Nunn/dp/1906454825/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1427407108&sr=1-1&keywords=john+nunn

Knowledge of tactics, plus endgames, gives you a natural foundation for your playing strength.

After that, you're on your own.  Get used to it.

End of Story ?  Don't hold your breath.  

I'd rather be the 2000 piece of trash.  

De la Maza was an very BIG outlier.

80 percent of chess players will barely make 1600 rating, at least in the USA.

And the "pecking order" in this thread leaves me breathless.  We chess players are soooooooo eccentric.    

Uhohspagehettio wrote: 

A computer is completely different to a human. You can't say "well if a computer can win by tactics alone why can't I", that's nonsensical. A computer is doing what it's optimized to do. You may as well say: "a computer can do math faster than any human by using binary digits, so therefore I should be able to do that."  

The lower the standard of play - including playing blitz play - the more tactics come into it. So training tactics might give good blitz results so it has quicker feedback, but over a long game both sides will have time to work out all relevant tactics in 95%+ of positions. Then it gets down to "do you prefer this position or this position", and if you don't have a clue and just make a random move you're in trouble. If you're making positional errors all the time you'll be positionally choked until your position is hopeless.    

  Well, I disagree. I had a game,and had all the positional pluses in the endgame, and mine tactical and positional pressure I arrive with a won bishop and pawn endgame, without good endgame technique I would of draw the game but I won. So, having good strategy alone is not enough you need to be strong in tactics and have decent endgame to win games. Tactics is not easy to master, I see tactical opportunity miss by low rated players all the time. Tarrasch said it well, "Before the endgame the gods have placed the middle game." 

If you get mauled in the first thirty moves, it doesn't matter how good your are at tactics or endgame technique.

People in this thread are talking past each other.  As usual.

Looks like the OP has abandoned the field, in any case.  Time to take the hint ?

I_Am_Second wrote: There is a reason tactics alone will get you to 2000, but no further.  Tactics are the $500 car with $5000 rims.  You look good, but the rest is a piece of trash. 

   Micheal DeLaMaza is the only player I know who made it to expert on tactics but quit chess. Most experts are well rounded but better believe they have a sharp eye for tactics and they will end the game quickly. What hold most players from going to the next level is tactics and endgame technique. Have won games indraw position because my opponent didn't know how to draw; this could easily be corected with a little study in the endgame. I see in the chess club poor tactical vision and miss simple tactics in their games. Players not knowing how to attack correctly, just basic chess but not having the chess knowledge. They don't even know strategy, they are just pushing wood around; a sound idea is more important than ramdonly moving pieces and hoping my opponent make a mistake. That is chess before expert level, try moving without a proper plan against experts and masters and find out it does not work.

Well part of the discussion was how to be good at tactics, does Maza method work or not ? Of course you can lose many games if you drop a piece every game.

Said things against Maza method :

1. Ok tactics necessary but is it correct method ?

2. Assume you learned to be good at tactics, and your opponent did the same then what ?

In my opinion psychology is the killer with the right frame of mind people play better, without it it usually doesnt matter in the game if you can solve 2500 rated problem or not when practising. Of course this is different subject. Still, everybody needs to work on their tactics but i believe not with Maza's method.

Yes, I understand the reluctants in studying tactics, it is a lot hard work ( you know the bad four letter word). Take any low rated player, one study tactics and the other strategy;the tactical player will win more games. 

MDLM didn't make it to expert on tactics.

I believe studying tactics is way easier than strategy. You are the first people i met thinking understanding strategy is easier.