Question for Titled Players Regarding Improvement

Hi Chris:

A common mistake of non titled players (even titled ones!) is thinking that reading books is enough to improve at chess. You have to understand that learning is different from training. Learning is when you read a book, any kind, and then you will grab some knowledge (I say some because no one gets everything at the first time). Training is when you apply the knowledge to special exercises. is mind blowing for me read some blogs saying, when explaining a training plan: "to train strategy, read these books". And so on. That is no training. That is learning.

Silman books are VERY GOOD books (u see, I said it ) Actually, I think is one of the best books about chess strategy I have read in english. What happens is lack of something that any book about any stage of the game has: they teach you, they dont train you. Dont blame the author, is the format, in a book you can't compile 10k of positions, a fair amount that usually masters have seen in their chess life experience.

Im pretty sure what Pogonina tried to say is this: analyzing your games is a tool you have to use to spot your weakness. And when you got it, (for example, lack of understanding of the center) you have to read about it again, and solve some exercises specially designed for that matter. Where to find those? Ask Dvoretzky . Seriously, the best approach to "swallow" chess is the "positional pictures" technique, explained by Dvoretzky in their books (actually many others too, it's not patent from him, is the russian school method). Explained quickly, is to collect positions that you feel you learnt something, verbalize the comments and title it, like "the two pawns center". the idea behind this is when you collect many of this positions through the time, and playing a game with similar position, then you can "remember" different grandmasters strategies to apply in that kind of situation. Reading a book you can't do that, is too vague.

Positional pictures is one approach, but solving exercises (and when I said exercises, I'm not thinking in tactics) is the other advice that Pogonina gave you. This is the actual training.

If I can explain it with a metaphor, I will say this: if you are learning a new language, you first learn the alphabet and the numbers (rules of chess and notation), then you start to say words (how the pieces move) and then, you say some small sentences (mates in one, first innocents threats and opening moves), or even some complex ones (tactics). And then, you will find (after some practice of the new language) that you can understand better than you are able to speak. What you need to do is practice more with people that are very fluent in the language even if you have to ask please could you repeat slower? (play with better players than you and/or solve exercises so tough that you can claim for mercy) but it's a lot of fun! Strategy is the fine language of chess. Everyone can sacrifice a queen, few can build a plan and make it happen through 20 or more moves.

Of course there is more, but I have wrote a lot already, and maybe I'm not making to much sense and rambling,   mostly because is a very wide subject to talk about in a forum. If you want some introduction to real chess training, take a look at Dvoretzky books, Kotov grandmasters series, and a little book from Soltis "chess study made easy". The title is lame and very commercial, but is good.

Disclaimer: I can be wrong.

Great question. I can think of at least a dozen possible responses. My best thought would be to finetune your openings so you reach the types of middlegames where you  understand the ideas and which align with your personal strenths and style of play.

I made a jump from class B to class A when I learned some openings and started learning the middlegame patterns that came from book lines. I jumped from class A to master when I learned openings that suited my playing strengths. At the time I liked sharp positions with pawn sacrficies for the inititative.

I stopped having master level results when my playing style changed and I didn't adapt my opening repertoire. Nowadays I play best in solid positional middlegames where I can get the better ending. When I revised my opening systems to get quieter positions my results went back up.  

@ CharlyAZ

I do not understand it completely.
At the moment I am going trough Max Euwe's "Planning and Judgement". I'm not just reading the book I'm playing out all the positions from move one till the end. After I try to reminisce the topic of the chapter and how it applied to the game (and I think Mr. Euwe gives great commentary, though the way he writes is very outdated don't you think?). I try to take a little time off and look at the board picture in my head how (for instance) the strong outpost of the knight helped the attack on the king side.

Will this already help me to remember and use this when I play? Just reading it won't help ofcourse, at the very least you have to play it all out and try to understand how it works.

Because how does one practice these things that they stay in your head forever? Simply play out more positions?

@Wouter.

Didnt you understand because the wording or because the content? english is not my first language and sometimes people do not understand me :)

Anyway: Yes, the Euwe book is a little outdated, but is minimum. The chess content in it is evergreen, and the same principles are valid. What happen that there is other books to read to. Is a good start anyway.

The difference between this book (and many others) is that usually they present the ideas in a pure state (because they are selected) I mean, bishop pair, or majority in the queen side. it's not like the actual games from good players, a plethora of strategic themes are mixed. Thats why have a good collection of positions are a good thing: they will give you a guide about whats important in the position, and, the MOST IMPORTANT THING IS YOU DEVELOP INTUITION. So, when you say "remember", actually I wanted to say Intuition, because could be impossible to remember precedents for every game you play. The thinking process has to be unconscious, to avoid cutting out the creative process.

The question you ask: Yes, you can try solve the exercises and it will help you, because you are making an effort to solve it, is active thinking. Every position, any, is a position you can learn from, and at the same time, if you try to solve it and not just to reproduce it, is a position you can use to train. Every position. Alekhine knew that almost 100 years ago, when he said that even from an amateur game he can learn something.

There is an exception, the positions you dont understand at all. It could happen with some games from supergms... if you dont have a coach, or a chess buddy, and you tried even moving the pieces, well, just save it: take a binder, put the position over there. From time to time, you comeback to these positions, and believe me, one day you will get it, because you will connect the dots based in others positions you didnt know before and now, with more experience, you are able to understand. Celebrate that day. (and Im not talking about years, this could happen in months of hard work).

Hope this is useful to you.

@Splane.

Master, the method you advise (openings+middle game), advocated for first time by Botvinnik, is a good thing for players that already have a solid base in middle game strategy... for example, a player linking the issolated queen pawn with tarrasch defense... will he only study that strategic theme? if the pawn is advanced and is traded (open center), or you have to trade a piece in d4 and the e3 pawn have to go to d4 (fixed centre), or...whatever? how a monotheme player will continue to the endless possibilities that any opening can become? No doubt with you worked because probably you were already a good player, but with beginners, or the ones with a rating in the lows 1000' is like take a energy drink : you will be boosted but in the end you will get busted.  Only openings and beginners is a bad mix, they can't stop study and train strategy, endgames, tactics.

As always, I can be wrong.

 Lol, me rambling and you explained it so clearly (I didnt read the whole thread before). Pretty funny the genius thing too.

I'm a writer by trade. I assure you that despite that, you play chess better than I write :)

 I disagree. You can be a really good player without a coach. But you have to work twice as hard; anyway, you are saving money.

 You got a good point, starting old is very inconvenient for every activity of human life, chess, as languages for example, the most. You can't learn a new language without accent and without grammar mistakes being old (me, for example, 35 and 3 learning english ), but you can speak it very well with tons of practice. I talk a lot everyday, and I read, I write and watch movies. Result: I'm dominating the language.

The same happens with chess, an "old guy" with the right combination of books, practice, training and will power will get you far, not world champion, but a decent player 2000+, even master. But not everyone wants to walk the path, because is not profitable and time consuming. For those who life is 64 squares and chess means self-improvement, it worth a try.

Good luck on becoming a master Phelon. For the record, I became a master without a coach, although I had higher rated players willing to play speed chess with me, particularly one expert, MC Wright, who lived a few blocks away and played me from the time I was a 1400. I was Tennessee's 2nd homegrown master, although I was born in Chicago but raised in Tn. The 1st was my co-high school champ, Curt Jones. We played in my parents basement with my 1st student, IM Ronald Burnett many long hours of loser get up. No one liked to lose and wait their turn.

I took 1 lesson in my life from Southern legend Boris Kogan. I remember talking about the queens gambit and how there was not a lot to do in an hour. He did give me some insight about top level chess but probably I learned more from the many road trips we took and my friends and I picked his brain about the soviet system. That said, I have met very few people over 2400 who did not have a full time coach. I cant really comment on the number who made 2200 since there are 100s of masters.

I also want to clear up a possible misunderstanding, when I said 3 unannotated games, I was talking about words. i mostly used informant games, which have brief annotations in symbols and references to other related games. Also the eco code itself is a help in understanding the flow of the game. What I did is not the same as just playing pgns with absolutely no annotations but there was no happy talk to try and explain things to me.

Thanks, I'm looking to become an expert by the time this year's through, so hopefully master will be within my reach at some point in my life :). I have the books to do it haha, I just need to read them (To prove my point here's a link to the main books I plan to read over the next year or two http://www.chess.com/photos/view_album/Phelon/chess-books). I also want to get on that top 100 players under 21 list in the us chess federation. Finding the time and energy to read and understand is the hardest part.

It's refreshing to see someone who made master without a formal coach guiding them along. Although you did have strong competition.

Phelon, you're reading Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual? 

I have a copy as well and I work through a couple of pages here and there.  I've been told that anyone rated under 2200 is "wasting their time" with that book, but I feel that it can't help to expose myself to those types of advanced concepts in small doses.  If I keep going through it I'm sure it will make more and more sense as time goes by.

I think the same people who say Dvoretsky's endgame manual is a waste of time are the same people who say under 2000's don't need opening theory. Teaching opening and endings are hard and tedious. It is much easier to use the Pandolfini method that anyone can see in searching for Bobby Fischer. I have seen it in real life at the Manhattan chess club. He has a briefcase full of problems, he gives the student a piece of paper with a problem on it, while drinking coffee. Minutes go by then they finally solve it and sometimes without any comment, he pulls another one out and the process repeats itself! I heard he charged 60-80 dollars an hour for this treatment but that is just rumor. Of course he has had at least one national champion and written many top selling books, so to each his own. I am just stating my opinions.

One of the reasons I think I have been a top 10 vendor on the ICC ahead of many IMs and GMs is that I crawled from level to level and understand the problems in each class. I made master at age 21, the same as Korchnoi and Spassky, but it took me 10 more years to make 2400. Some have said Russian master is not comparable to US. Many of the vendors below me were IMs in high school and really don't fully know how to explain what they know. It simply happened way too fast for their conscious memory, although their subconscious lapped it all up.

When I was toying with the idea of paying for a coach, your ad on ICC was one of only a few I was strongly tempted by, BMcC333. For exactly the reasons you listed. I get the impression that many of the young masters are poor fits to teach adult intermediates.

 Lol, I would never say that. But try to go through that book with someone doesn't know basic endings (and when I say this I mean a total beginner). Is a good read and good enough for someone who have even little experience.

Ya I am. It's slow going, but I love the complexity of the problems. I can spend a good 5-30 minutes on one exercise just calculating twists and turns 7-8 moves ahead. If my main strength in chess wasn't tactics I think I would be completely lost. The actual principles he shows in the blue I think you can go over at any level (maybe not understand fully but introduce yourself to the idea), but I can see his exercises being recommended for only high level players.

If I were you I would go over Silman's Complete Endgame Course first (once again recommending Silman ). It would help to prep you some for Dvoretsky, and familiarize yourself with endgame tactics.

Yes, for example. Not sure about the accuracy of the scores in the book though...