The whole idea is to actually solve the puzzles and become familiar with tactical ideas and checkmate patterns. So as you suggested, just skipping the puzzles and looking at the solutions would be rather pointless, as you're not actually discovering the ideas naturally, and as a result, not improving your chess.
Question about the Woodpecker Method?
Sort:
May 19, 2022
0
#3
The idea is to beat the patterns & motifs into your subconscious so you spot them in live games while just observing the position.
The goal isn’t to memorize the exact puzzles because you will never see the same position in one of your games.
Add me on Chessable if you’re using it for the Woodpecker book & method.
The goal isn’t to memorize the exact puzzles because you will never see the same position in one of your games.
Add me on Chessable if you’re using it for the Woodpecker book & method.
May 19, 2022
0
#4
If you try something and fail, you learn more than the solution, you learn something about your thought process, and why the wrong solution didn't work.
That's not just in chess, that's with anything.
May 20, 2022
0
#5
KingPawnSavage wrote:
The idea is to beat the patterns & motifs into your subconscious so you spot them in live games while just observing the position.
But surely you can do that by looking at the solutions without doing the puzzle, so why would that make a difference?
May 20, 2022
0
#6
MikeGTO wrote:
So as you suggested, just skipping the puzzles and looking at the solutions would be rather pointless, as you're not actually discovering the ideas naturally, and as a result, not improving your chess.
But if you get the puzzle wrong before looking at the solution then you wouldn't be discovering the idea for yourself anyway, so there wouldn't be a difference?
May 20, 2022
0
#7
Yes, there's a difference. I already told you. It's part of passive vs active learning... but sounds like you're not interested in the answer, you just want to argue.
May 20, 2022
0
#8
Lffjkfcjlmfc wrote:
KingPawnSavage wrote:
The idea is to beat the patterns & motifs into your subconscious so you spot them in live games while just observing the position.
But surely you can do that by looking at the solutions without doing the puzzle, so why would that make a difference?
You’re not working out those tactical muscles by just looking up the answers.
But if it make sense to you go ahead and give it a try and post your results.
So the idea behind the woodpecker method is to solve and repeat the same puzzles over and over. If that's the case, why not just look at the solutions first? I mean it's based on memory right? So surely the only difference between solving the puzzles and skipping straight to the solution would be you'd save time by not doing the puzzles, either way you'd look at and memorize the solutions?