Systematic way to get better at chess?

Lol, I think the Russians would disagree with you on that Kingpatzer. And not every 8 year old is going to beat every 60 year old club player, unless they have lost their ability to calculate, which granted can happen to some, but your argument isn't really valid. For example how many 8 year old wonder kids are out there ? I would say far fewer than the 60 year old club player. Knowledge is important in chess, just like any other endeavour, otherwise the candidates would be nothing but 12 year olds, Lol.

i think the knight is right. 

"Chess can not be taught, it can only be learned."

"Chess is the art of analysis."

"Chess mastery essentially consists of analyzing chess positions accurately."

All quotations by Botvinnik. Somehow, I don't think he'd disagree with me too strongly. 

yes but those statements dont even contradict what the knights.

Knight's response to me is focusing not on the substance of my comment: that knowledge and performance ability have little to do with each other; and instead he focuses entirely on the rhetorical flourish I employed. 

Of course I'm speaking somewhat hyperbolically. However, the general point is worthy of serious consideration: the level of chess knowledge a person possesses and their performance at the board are at best only loosely correlated.  

Guys who have been seriously studying chess for decades are routinely beaten by players who possess very little in the way of academic knowledge about the game comparitively speaking. They win because they can calculate, evaluate and analyze better. And those skills have very little to do with chess knowledge. 

 

Which is why I'm such a fan of the Yusupov books - he gives a couple of paragraphs of text on some subject, then four or five examples, and then twelve exercises. The real learning happens when you solve the exercises and understand them well.

Same for Chess Steps -- all the normal lessons are there, but in the form of exercises, exercises, exercises.

It doesn't contradict what I stated. How does one actually learn ?

To gain knowledge, comphrehension,mastery of thru experience or by studying. To fix in the mind or memory, to Memorize. That is the actual definition of Learn.

 Analysis is actually learning, because its the act of studying individual aspects of a given field of study. Such as chemistry, or different fields of mathmatics.

It divides fields of study into individual components, (but it is still studying those components, and in many cases has to rely on previous knowledge already learned in the particular field.

I would go further and state the best way to learn is by a teacher or be taught by a teacher, which is to impart knowledge or even skill to. To learn by example. So if any saying is contradictary its Botvinnik's.

Its pretty obvious that chess can be taught, Ask Magnus, and Polgars about it.

You make a good point but I would say knowledge vs concrete calculation is more like 50-50.

You're underestimating the power of knowlege. Immediately recognizing the imbalances and knowing what you're playing for is extremely important. Pure calculation will not lead you anywhere (especially in a slow positional game) if you don't already know the position you're aiming for.

"when you're in a messed up position out of the opening you're much more likely to make blunders.

Opening study is useful at all levels."

I disagree with it. For example, Today I played a game against an 17xx fide rated opponent, I am 16xx currently.
In real, tournament game I never played 1. d4, it was the first time. I practised it a lot, played games here with it and played against my coach as well.
But of course, nobody can be ready for every opening. I played against the KID, and I don't know where did I go wrong yet (I will analyze it) but I got a bit worse position, (black got active play and I had to defend) because I did not know the theory really. However, I knew some important strategical rules, which are regardless from the opening, and I was able to survive from that position, later on I get an active play and won.
I had a completely unknown, bit worse position from the opening. But I played well thanks to other strategical rules I know. So it is much important to have general skills, knowledge, and be able to apply it. Openings does not matter.

Maybe it was not a perfect game, but it shows that in general you should not deal to much with the openings. You need to train your strategy, tactics, and thinking skills.

Actually, the Polgar's are an example that shows it is not knowledge which dictates results. If it were, the Polgar's should not have been beating their father at such a young age. 

They were better players than he long before they got coaching help outside the family. But one can only teach what one knows.

So, abscent the knowledge, how did he develop the ability in his girls to be better than he? 

It may seem like I'm trying to count angels on the head of a pin, but I don't think this is a minor point. This is fundamentally why most people don't really improve their chess ability even though they spend countless hours studying the game. This isn't a minor distinction in my mind. 

People spend hour upon hour increasing their knowledge of the game without spending even a few minutes increasing their performance ability -- because they fundamentally are confused into thinking the two are, if not the same, at least intimately related. 

There is a core body of chess KNOWLEDGE that simply must be absorbed if you hope to ever reach the USCF A Class, 1800-2000.

And no amount of "calculating" over the board, or playing (extra slow) online chess will impart this knowledge to you.

Indeed, there's a reason 90 percent of USCF tournament players are below and 1800 rating.  They're basically lazy, and unwilling to put in the necessary work.  Chess is hard work, at least initially.

• Yes, 8 year-old prodigies and savants will always be around to beat up the older guys.  But, so what.  I'm surprised @Kingpatzer advanced such a specious argument in post #25.

You need to train yourself to be able to play all three phases of the game, at speeds between Game in 10/5 and Game in 60/5.  And, you need to be able to be able play at these speeds, at roughly your OTB playing strenth.  Otherwise, you don't "know enough" to make reasonable move choices fast enough.  So hit the books.

5-hours of chess STUDY is fantastically more efficient for raising your playing strength (at all speeds), than playing a 5-hour chess game.  Especially when your rating is below USCF 1800.

Online players enjoy the slow "artistry" of the game.  Consider instead Lasker's dictum -- chess is a battle.

So STUDY hard, practice hard at Game in 10/5 up to Game in 60/5, and arm yourself for that battle.  You must strike the right balance between STUDY and PRACTICE, at reasonably "fast" speeds.

Or just keep posting, mindlessly.

Ignore this advice at your own peril. You have been warned.

Spoken like a true student of Silman. 

Who, sadly, hasn't produced very many GM players at all.

Odd that guys like Dvoretsky and Yusopov have.

But maybe they just don't understand how to coach chess players.  

Yes but I do agree with this. I just said that studying opening is useful, and it also trains the 3 things you said.

Your example has an interesting factor: you were white. White has a much easier game and can of course play without theory. Problem is with black, that does need some knowledge of opening theory to equalize against ambition openings.

Plus I don't really know the theory for the KID, but I'm not sure black did the best moves.

Funny that you say that because I don't like Silman and instead I love Dvoretsky's endgame manual.

But helping the average Joe reaching 2000 is a completely different endeavour than to produce material that fellow GMs will learn from. Silman is clearly focused on the former.

I would say your overall performance is still tied to what your knowledge of chess actually is. I am not talking about knowing a name of a historical chess player. Nor even an opening name.

Yes calculation is important, I would never state it isn't, thats pretty obvious. Having creativity is also important, and that is more individualistic. Learning that may not be possible for some. It usually also decreases with age.

So I am thinking this really is what your argument is about. That really is the main reason (in my opinion at least) that some are more talented than others. It also explains that why beginning chess early in ones life is also helpful in this.

Just like Musical or art prodigies, or even savants that show great talent from an early age. Those are not taught, however even they go through the learning stages to get better.

You two aren't really talking about the same thing. Kingpatzer is saying that decision making at the board is the most important skill, and then you argue against him as if he is saying that calculation is. But he didn't claim that.

The other thing is that it's not clear which things count as "knowledge" and which as "skill". Recognizing imbalances is both, you need to know what they are and be able to recognize them.

Anyway, I don't think it's controversial that knowledge is only useful as far as it helps you make good decisions at the board.

A problem with reading a lot of text about chess is that you learn about a whole slew of factors (from development and the center to pawn structure to bad bishops vs good knights to superfluous pieces to opening theory to etc etc), and behind the board you have no way to decide which of the umpteen different factors will actually help you make the right decision in this particular concrete case. OK, he gets an isolated doubled pawn, but is that relevant here? How can one find out? Or the infamous "he deviated from theory, so I must be better!"

If you do all your chess learning in the context of studying concrete positions, you're at least less likely to suffer from such information overload, and if you do all of it from reading chess books as if they're school text books then you certainly will.

Kikvors,

Quote from Kingpatzer

Guys who have been seriously studying chess for decades are routinely beaten by players who possess very little in the way of academic knowledge about the game comparitively speaking. They win because they can calculate, evaluate and analyze better. And those skills have very little to do with chess knowledge. 

Kingpatzers claims are exaggerated some what. He also does mention calculation, not just decision making. I mean really how else could you make a decision except either by prior knowledge gained ( which you would use in calculations to determine the proper decision to make), or just guessing, and hoping.

 He also stated its common 8 year olds beat 60 year old club players ? Is that so. I would say thats not routine, nor common at all. I am not saying it does not happen at all though.

Some people learn a lot from reading Kikvor, whether it overloads them is an individual opinion on your part. I don't understand the last part of your post.

Who was that general who was a pretty good player, and complained about not being able to find a real chess challenge? He then got his butt end handed to him by nine year old Paul Morphy twice in a row, and refused to play him again. It's not common, but it does happen.

Yes and I stated that it can happen, but it is not common nor routine. I also gave my opinion on why some people are more talented than others, in a past post, which I am not going to repeat here, and I think that is the real argument Kingpatzer has. Which there is an aspect to chess that some can't learn, nor be taught. 

I've stated same too.