You're probably right. And sure it's important. I've just had many students whose games are decided primarily by who makes bad moves rather than finding killer blows - studying tactics doesn't really help them with that as they find it hard to apply it in reverse, ie. seeing threats etc.
What is a typical chess study routine?
Sort:
Somebodysson a écrit :
TheGreatOogieBoogie wrote:
I try going for one or two if I can. Then I'll finish it anyway then start on the next one.
besides reading, and I assume, playing...do you do other chess study? Like, when you're reading a book, say like Fine's Basic Endings, are you also doing tactical puzzles. Or are you working on only the material in the book that month? I find this interesting, as I'm trying to put together a chess curriculum for myself, and am interested to hear how other players do it. So far I've put all my time into the tactics trainer on here, and a thread I have on here. I'm about to start on Lou Hays Winning Chess Tactics for Juniors; I have been advised to spend at least a month on this, and I'm wondering if I should try to read another chess book at the same time. So please advise whether your chess study in that month is all the book you are reading at the time. thanks
I personnaly read a tactic's book (not just read but work hard and try to understand all the ideas which is not so easy and take me 1 or 2 hours to do just one page, sometimes I've got a apparently easy position but during 1 hour I search and still don't find 10% of the solution - of course I'm angry and disapointed sometimes but this is the only way to progress in my point of view) and some part of an ending's book. I read sometimes other books but I have plan to finish these important and difficult 2 books (only 20 % in the endgame book- the most important part) entirely. I've plan to read another analytical/tactic book, and a strategic book, but not before I've finished the 2 first books.
The tactic book (Dvoretsky - "School of Chess Excellence 2 : tactical play", which I don't recommand for beginners) needs a lot of work, 300 hours or even more, at my level (2000). The book on the endgame ("Endgame manual", Dvoretsky, not for beginners) needs me something like 1000 hours to be carefully studied, but I'm now only doing the "blue print" part (+ some exercices) which is 20% of the book.
What do you recommend to analyse?
Basically any non trivial position where you can get feedback. An annotated game collection, strong friend, or coach are good sources of feedback.
OTB tournament games are good sources of your own analysis.
The stronger you are, the better feedback a computer can give you. They're not ideal though because other than being simply wrong sometimes, other times they give very impractical moves.
waffllemaster wrote:
Basically any non trivial position where you can get feedback. An annotated game collection, strong friend, or coach are good sources of feedback.
OTB tournament games are good sources of your own analysis.
The stronger you are, the better feedback a computer can give you. They're not ideal though because other than being simply wrong sometimes, other times they give very impractical moves.
thanks :)
I would say ability to analyse is number one by a long stretch. Doing tactical problems is nowhere near as useful as many people seem to think it is.
Well, I count analysis #1 for me personally. Maybe for newer players it is also. I remember being completely helpless in the beginning though, when I didn't know any tactical patterns.