Transition from expert to master.

I'm pretty much at the halfway point between expert and master (2100 here in the U.S) and am excited about making that push to 2200.  I figure at this point, the best thing to do is solve 9 bazillion difficult puzzles every day ( what got me here so far) but was wondering if anyone had any advice on the subject.  Thank you for your time.

Good job! I am stuck at 2000. Wish I had an idea for your final push to master.

Is that 2100 USCF OTB?

2073... was rounding up a little but yes. USCF OTB

Have you ever read, "My System", by Aaron Nimzowitsch or Pawn Power In Chess, by Hans Kmoch?

I am not that high ranked but I actually saw many of these topics. Masters usually suggest for your level:

Read Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual from cover to cover.

Don't miss any OTB tournaments.

Connectedpasser,

how about getting lessons from a chesscoach, IM or GM ?

achja wrote:

Connectedpasser,

how about getting lessons from a chesscoach, IM or GM ?

________________

It helped me. GM Ron Henley and I lived together in Orlando, Fl

Thanks for the advice everybody.

I am ranked 2140 USCF and achieved my final Candidate Master norm at a tournament last year with a tie for top U2100 in the Under 2200 section at the World Open. Although my playing opportunities are limited now due to graduate studies, I felt I made a significant breakthrough in my play. I became an expert in April 2012 and I have only played 5 tournaments since then. This was after a long hiatus from chess with a plateau of 11 years in the 1900-1999 range. In December 2011, I made a serious resolve to improve my chess. This meant more structured training with defined goals and selecting events carefully. (I think small events can be a bit of a distraction and a cause of complacency if you're a big fish in a small pond. Class B players at local tournaments in Alabama simply do not play like experts and masters in national events.)

I've done a lot of puzzles, but those only go so far. A lot of puzzles test pattern recognition, but quality and accuracy of analysis becomes much more important at higher levels. If I were to begin training for a tournament again, I'd consider using Aagaard's book on calculcation. My feeling is that intensity of training becomes more important than volume as you become stronger.

Surprisingly, after I passed 2000, I discovered my openings with Black were a weakness. I say "surprisingly", because I had spent a lot of time on the opening. I had learned the Classical Sicilian and the Benko for the World Open in 2012, but I found these openings to be unwieldy against strong players. Based on some advice from a grandmaster, I switched to more principled mainlines as White and more solid openings as Black. I learned mainline 1.d4 openings and switched to 1.e4 e5 and the Slav as Black. Somehow things started to click. I had good positions where I could fight without being at a disadvantage in the middlegame. In my particular case, I think finding a solid repertoire for Black against strong opposition was an important milestone in improvement towards 2200 level. I learned to become "tougher" in my approach to the game. This is a lot harder to pick up if you don't face expert and master opposition regularly. In 2013, I prepared a repertoire that I felt would be suitable for master level. I prepared openings that were designed for struggles against strong players. I resolved to play the openings that I considered worthy for master level play. I did not expect any easy wins or quick kills from the opening and I think this had a positive impact on my results.

I know a lot of people (often below 2000) say the opening is overemphasized, but I think opening preparation is actually very important in modern play at master level. Going to Castle Chess Camp in 2012 really opened my eyes about this. Also before the summer of 2012, I never used analysis engines in opening preparation and I think that is also another important skill in preparation. This new aspect of my training might have had an impact on my results in 2013 as well.

Also many training plans I see are unrealistic. Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual is a great book, but I think many titled players would have trouble working through the whole book within a year. The subject is mostly technical endgames which is only an aspect of endgame play. It would probably be more realistic and practical to work through Shereshevsky's Endgame Strategy on strategic endgame play. (Admittedly, I haven't done that yet, but it has high recommendations from many grandmasters.)

Something we do here that might help--get three other 2000-rated players and play a quad amongst yourselves.  Make the entry fee whatever--we use $20, winner take all, non-USCF rated.  The three rounds with no easy games is a good workout, with the money it's not just a matter of ego, and you don't risk rating points.  Just a thought.

Very interesting post MetalRatel. Thanks a lot for sharing !

Some great insights, suggestions, and encouragement here!

This sounds like a good time.  Thanks to all for the thought provoking answers!

Especially the part with choosing a black repertoire.  I need to play more solid with black and not assume that my foe will fall for the trappy Dzindzi-Indian stuff.

Three Steps To Chess Mastery (Suetin)

It's mainly for Class-A, experts and candidate masters as the book assumes you've reached that certain level and will not hold your hand along the way.