Here is my idea which I ask to be peer reviewed in the best academic traditions!
Tactics - 10 minutes (problem solving)
Visualisation - 10 minutes ( blindfold exercises)
Strategy and evaluation - 20 minutes (the 20 minute exercise)
*Endgame - 20 minutes (theory and practical endgame)
* this can be alternated with other areas, like openings, or game analysis or playing over master games etc etc
I am just returning to chess after 25 years away. My old training program was mostly learning opening variations, with a bit of tactics and endgame study. That was the wrong approach, of course.
My program now includes an hour a day of tactics and endgame problems, about 2/3 to 3/4 of that on tactics. The main aspect of my studying is learning the plans for typical pawn formations. I do this because it's apparent to me that planning was by far the weakest part of my play in the old days. I did okay (USCF 1796) with "If I go here, he goes there, and I can go there", but never quite got the concept of having a real idea of what the position was calling for.
My intention is to finish the study of pawn formations and then to select openings that tend to lead to positions that I like and understand. Unlike the old days, when I spent dozens of hours studying openings that I thought were "neat". Only after having selected openings in that way will I begin to study those openings in depth.
If this approach is of any interest to you, I would recommend three excellent books on planning based on pawn structure: Kmoch's "Pawn Power in Chess", Soltis's "Pawn Structure Chess", and Rios's "Chess Structures: A Grandmaster Guide". There is at least one other book on the subject, Hickl's "The Power of Pawns: Chess Structure Fundamentals for Post-beginners", but I haven't looked at it yet and therefore can't evaluate it.
I have read Soltis pawn structure chess and have two copies of Pawn power in chess but I have never read the latter. Studying pawn structures with regard to typical plans and ideas I think is super helpful and is probably the most helpful way to study an opening I am more interested in how players structure their study time. I have never done any structured study just reading books here and there and practising some tactics now and gain. My idea was to try to fit it into an hour but its almost impossible. Maybe a ninety minute study program would be better.
1. tactics (motifs, calculation and visualisation) 30 min
2. evaluation ( looking at relatively non forcing position and trying to formulate ideas , planning and verification etc) - 30 min
for example
3. *endgame (theoretical and practical) 30 min
* this can be alternated with other areas, like openings, or game analysis or playing over master games etc etc
This appears to me to be quite manageable and balanced
It's not at all like going to the gym - when you exercise, you pretty much always get some benefit from it, if you do it a while.
Compare this to the tons of chess players who spend hours studying chess, have all the chess books and up to date theoretical knowledge, and have the best engines, who are still 1600 OTB, and pretty weak players relative to their effort.
Chess should be like learning math in the sense that you need *basic* chess knowledge first, and then you need to be able to apply this in your games. The second part is the important one - all knowledge that cannot be applied to your games efficiently is useless knowledge, from a practical standpoint. That's why the most common chess mistakes are the following, regarding training:
*Accumulation of Useless Knowledge - Hikaru Nakamura didn't know more than GM Kaufman (who'd probably been playing chess for about 40+ years professionally) when he beat him. But Hikaru had better skills - ability to apply his knowledge.
*Dismissal of Basic Knowledge - What is the most important thing, that chess revolves around, other than checkmate? What is the goal of each move you make? If you can't answer/explain that, then you don't understand basic chess. And there's no one correct answer, although I provide my answer in my blog - but you need some basic foundation.
*"Knowing it" too soon - You don't know something in chess unless you can apply it when the time comes to do so. This is a continuation of the first mistake.
*Quantity vs Quality - The quality of your training is more important than the quantity. Reading 20 books quickly is useless, while reading 1 book deeply and understanding it thoroughly provides better results - this is again, a continuation of the first mistake, since quality implies that you can understand when to use the knowledge
*Expectation of quick results - we see this all the time when people post threads about wanting to be GMs in 3 years, when their current ratings are around 1400 or something really low. The truth is that chess improvement is slow, even if done correctly. Hikaru Nakamura took almost 2 years to get from 600 (his first rating) to about 1900-2000. Don't expect anything faster than this.
And that's about it, in my opinion. At the master level, there's probably a whole plethora of new different problems you might encounter...
Lastly, chess improvement does not come gradually, but comes with large jumps over long periods of time. There's a big explanation around this, but I think most players will find this pretty accurate.
My best routine is: I start a chess book and don't do anything else until I finish it, except for tactics or positional exercises. Until now I finished 3 books on openings, 2 endgame books, 3 books on strategy - pawn structures and positional play -. Now I study a book on attack: Aagaard - attack and defense.
That's a pretty interesting approach. I wish I had the discipline to do that and clearly it works for you. Jaccob Aagaard live near me 
At full intensity, I play and study for between 14-16 hours in a day, usually mostly online games that I feed into Stockfish after each game to find the first mistake (and "overwrite" my opening repertoire), and occasionally studying a middlegame or endgame where it's clear I missed something. I also do the ECC5 combinations exercises (bought that for $25.00), while i have my computer analyze key opening positions when I'm either training or sleeping.
Sorry that seems rather extreme especially when one has a wife and children to consider. It must be great to have the luxury though.
It's not at all like going to the gym - when you exercise, you pretty much always get some benefit from it, if you do it a while.
Compare this to the tons of chess players who spend hours studying chess, have all the chess books and up to date theoretical knowledge, and have the best engines, who are still 1600 OTB, and pretty weak players relative to their effort.
Chess should be like learning math in the sense that you need *basic* chess knowledge first, and then you need to be able to apply this in your games. The second part is the important one - all knowledge that cannot be applied to your games efficiently is useless knowledge, from a practical standpoint. That's why the most common chess mistakes are the following, regarding training:
*Accumulation of Useless Knowledge - Hikaru Nakamura didn't know more than GM Kaufman (who'd probably been playing chess for about 40+ years professionally) when he beat him. But Hikaru had better skills - ability to apply his knowledge.
*Dismissal of Basic Knowledge - What is the most important thing, that chess revolves around, other than checkmate? What is the goal of each move you make? If you can't answer/explain that, then you don't understand basic chess. And there's no one correct answer, although I provide my answer in my blog - but you need some basic foundation.
*"Knowing it" too soon - You don't know something in chess unless you can apply it when the time comes to do so. This is a continuation of the first mistake.
*Quantity vs Quality - The quality of your training is more important than the quantity. Reading 20 books quickly is useless, while reading 1 book deeply and understanding it thoroughly provides better results - this is again, a continuation of the first mistake, since quality implies that you can understand when to use the knowledge
*Expectation of quick results - we see this all the time when people post threads about wanting to be GMs in 3 years, when their current ratings are around 1400 or something really low. The truth is that chess improvement is slow, even if done correctly. Hikaru Nakamura took almost 2 years to get from 600 (his first rating) to about 1900-2000. Don't expect anything faster than this.
And that's about it, in my opinion. At the master level, there's probably a whole plethora of new different problems you might encounter...
Actually the analogy was used not to demonstrate that its synonymous with going to the gym but that we train in different areas and do it consistently in a structured way to get results. This is a new concept for me.
If we are doing the same thing over and over again with no difference in the results then surely its a kind of insanity? I agree though, there is a huge difference between chess knowledge and chess skill which leads us to the conclusion that training should be above all practical, active not passive. Theory and application.
According to Soltis chess learning is not like mathematics because much of it is done at a subliminal level, we absorb material and ideas, they enter the subconscious realm and when we are faced with a similar scenario we can draw it up and apply it. He calls this intuition and cites some examples from actual games. Its a very interesting concept I think.
*I never said chess learning was like math learning. I said chess learning was like an aspect of math learning - basic ideas before advanced ones, which new players rarely ever follow.
*I believe there's a lot of theory about chess learning, but the bottom line is that you need to be able to apply stuff that you absorb in the games. Soltis is correct --- it can be intuition, be it can also be a conscious thought process in the game.
When you go to the gym you don't spend 10 minutes on every muscle. You choose one muscle and really give it a good workout. If I'm doing tactics then I focus on tactics. Then I might spend an hour on something else the next day. I'm a noob though so might not be the best way but I like it.
Actually it depends what you are doing. Usually when you go to the gym you are given a training program by your instructor, 20 mins on the cross trainer, 20 mins on the treadmill, 15 min on the rowing machines etc even if you are doing weight training one needs to vary, working certain parts of the body at one time and resting it the next. The idea was to illustrate a structured approach to learning not to claim that chess and gymnasium are synonymous.
Your approach is the same as mine, completely random, I am wondering if a structured approach would be better.
*I never said chess learning was like math learning. I said chess learning was like an aspect of math learning - basic ideas before advanced ones, which new players rarely ever follow.
*I believe there's a lot of theory about chess learning, but the bottom line is that you need to be able to apply stuff that you absorb in the games. Soltis is correct --- it can be intuition, be it can also be a conscious thought process in the game.
Sure I understand
food for thought , cheers robbie and other contributors some good suggestions this thread has bought ,
food for thought , cheers robbie and other contributors some good suggestions this thread has bought ,
When you go to the gym you don't spend 10 minutes on every muscle. You choose one muscle and really give it a good workout. If I'm doing tactics then I focus on tactics. Then I might spend an hour on something else the next day. I'm a noob though so might not be the best way but I like it.
When you go to the gym you don't spend 10 minutes on every muscle. You choose one muscle and really give it a good workout. If I'm doing tactics then I focus on tactics. Then I might spend an hour on something else the next day. I'm a noob though so might not be the best way but I like it.
No one has claimed that you do spend ten minutes on every muscle and it tedious to have to explain the analogy again and again to those who could not grasp its significance the first time. I would also be pleased if you refrained from spamming the thread with links that have no relevance here.
dear moderator can you remove the offensive and blatant abuse of privilege by removing the silly link to holidays in Sri Lanka which I am sure are very pleasant but have no place here.
Do any of you guys follow a kind of study routine?
Maybe it comes down to personal taste (and/or circumstances) but I avoid routines. We all lead busy lives and when something unavoidable leads to your routine being disrupted that can be very demoralising.
I do have a useful set of guidelines for intermediate study though, and here it is:
A Study guide for intermediates.
Nearly all chess enthusiasts stop at the intermediate level. Why? In some cases they do not want to advance but most students stall at this stage because they do not have access to good instruction, which is necessary for further progress. What follows is a complete set of guidelines for studying all phases and aspects of the game.
The Opening.
First, you have to feel comfortable with ALL the positions of the main variations. For example, if you play the Caro-Kann because you like the Classical System you must also like the other options which are open to the White side such as the Advance Variation, the Panov Attack etc. Therefore, to play the opening well you have to improve in many different types of positions and this means that opening preparation goes hand-in-hand with strategic learning. In addition, reviewing master games will lead you to discover new systems and structures. This approach will help you to feel comfortable with positions which were previously unfamiliar and you will also learn how to evaluate positions meaningfully.
Second, you must learn to understand the plans (for both sides!) of every principal variation, and not be tempted to just memorise the move sequences. Apart from anything else, your opponent is not going to play like Carlsen, so it is enough initially to know and understand good plans for your systems.
A powerful method for opening study: try to find an explanation for the move order in a particular variation. Keep the board in front of you and think why it is important to play a certain move ahead of another. With this method you will gain:
A better understanding of the plans in the position.
Better calculation skills.
Deeper, move-by-move learning (understanding) of the variation.
Strategy.
First of all, you have to (re-) learn chess strategy and learn HOW-TO-THINK. You have to develop your skills in evaluating and playing typical chess positions. It is very useful to keep a notebook and to review it from time to time. Here is a list of the best books on strategy for your level:
Chess Master vs Chess Amateur Euwe
My System Nimzowitsch
Understanding pawn play in chess Marovic
Understanding chess move-by-move Nunn
Capablanca’s best games Golombek
Tal-Botvinnik, 1960 Tal
It is very instructive to analyse and annotate your own games. When possible, categorise your own moves according to the principles you have learned. Continue this practice for all of your future games.
Tactics.
Studying material devoted to strategy will drastically improve your overall understanding of chess. However, we all know that a game can end abruptly if either player fails to pay attention to the tactical possibilities. What’s more, a sound strategic approach in the early phase will often win in the end with a tactical blow.
When you study tactics, try to calculate on your own ALL the variations of the key positions and only then refer to the solutions provided by the author.
Remember: “Chess is played on a board with pieces” (ICS). Recognise the pivotal role that BVT plays in your study of tactics.
The following books are the most suitable for your level:
The Art of Attack in Chess Vukovic
Chess Tactics for Advanced Players Averbakh
Learn Chess Tactics Nunn
The Endgame.
Endgame knowledge helps more than you might realise at first. For example when you have a good position in the middlegame but there is no possibility of a mating attack or a decisive material gain you make normal moves that take the game close to the endgame. These types of positions are very frequent and you will have to find a line that leads to a winnable endgame. You can calculate exactly the variation and then visualize the resulting position, but is it a good endgame or a bad one? This is often impossible to calculate exactly and this is when your knowledge of basic endgame positions becomes very valuable. Here many players lose their way, since the misinterpretation of the endgame often changes the result of an otherwise good game.
Other benefits are less obvious: endgame study is an invaluable aid towards improving your calculation ability. You need that at any stage of the game! Other benefits include better understanding of strategy, since strategic elements (such as square weaknesses) are usually more obvious in the endgame.
One very good and comprehensive book on the endgame is:
Endgame Manual (2nd edition) Dvorestsky
Some final tips.
Your study program must be based on ACTIVE learning! You should aim to comprehend every position / game. Develop the habit of asking questions at each turn, and seek your own answers before looking at the solutions provided.
Do not rely on your computer too much. Analysing games with the help of a chess engine is time wasted.
Play as many tournaments as you can and analyse each game thoroughly afterwards.
Keep a notebook and review it frequently. Don’t forget to record the thoughts, ideas, emotions and worries that ran through your mind during each game.
Lastly, chess improvement does not come gradually, but comes with large jumps over long periods of time. There's a big explanation around this, but I think most players will find this pretty accurate.
I am seriously looking forward to such a jump (I would had quit already, but I am not a quitter)!!! Even though I know much theory and when I played daily chess, could apply it and get a big rating, I can't apply none in blitz, cause of the small time limit. Noticed, that everybody advises low rated players to just concentrate in avoiding hanging pieces and after looking to some of my games, decided it is a pretty solid advice and will try it. Hopefully, if I ever manage to do that, will see my first jump.
anyways, u give some pretty good advice
Do any of you guys follow a kind of study routine? Great power moves in cycles right?
I wonder how beneficial it is. It seems to me it must be like going to the gym, you do some cardio, some upper body training, some lower body training then work on your leg muscles etc I vaguely remember reading that Lasker advocated this approach although I forget how he proportioned the study time. If anyone has any suggestions on a kind of structured approach and what time one should spend on these areas please let it be known.
from what i can discern such an approach must be above all practical after all who of us can go to the gym and workout for more than a couple of hours. Indeed one is accustomed to working for a short time on a particular aspect and then the next another aspect and the next another.