What should I study next?

gundamv, I have much more to say, but first one question: How long do you think it will take to study this position?

 And this one?

 I am interested to know your honest answer. There is no right or wrong answer, just whatever your truthful answer is. Then I can explain more.

What is the English book? Is it Chess Evolution, or something else?

The first one looks like an endgame.  Assuming I am White, I probably have drawing chances though winning might be a bit tough given the material disadvantage.  Some technical knowledge appears to be necessary.  I say it will take me at least a day (around 2-3 hours of time, as I have other obligations) to study this position.  I will probably also look at similar positions, such as positions where the Black King is on g6 instead or where my King is on g1 instead.

 

The second position is an opening or middlegame position.  How much time I will spend on it really depends on what I am trying to get out of studying it.  If I am studying to learn an opening line, then I will probably spend at least a day (again, 2-3 hours, as I have other obligations) on it, with an emphasis on ideas behind the opening and common continuations of this line.  Then, I will try to reach the opening position in games I play and, if those games are well-played (i.e. not decided by an obvious tactic by either side), then I would annotate the games too.  Annotation takes another hour or two.  If I am studying to learn a positional idea, then I might spend a bit less time as I already have a somewhat strong positional knowledge base.  I might just spend an hour or two to learn the positional idea.  This includes time writing down notes and reviewing example games that feature this position.

Please note though that I have other obligations during the day and that I can at most spend 2-3 hours a day on chess.  I also prefer to learn ideas that I can apply in games rather than theoretical ideas that might appear once in a long while. That is because the more I practice an idea in games, the better I find myself at using that idea.  If I go too long without applying an idea, I might just forget it.

If you read the comments from the masters that responded, you will see more talk of "doing" and less talk of "knowledge" and "which book". They are not going into great detail, but what they are telling you is GOLD.

Here is how I think of it: Anyone can look at a map and see the correct path, but not everyone has the experience to make it over those mountains. There is a difference between knowing a lot of chess knowledge and being able to execute it in tournament OTB play.

Do you have a big picture way of looking and thinking about chess? The knowledge areas you mention (tactics, endings, etc) are only components that should fit into a larger mental framework.

Here is one example, see reply #54:

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/training-a-thinking-system?page=3

Yaroslavl provides a mental framework, and then you can go fill in the missing pieces. He calls them "pattern memory banks", which makes more sense to me than just calling them "areas of knowledge". Patterns implies it's something that you have drilled into your brain, that you will "just see it" when you play, it will jump off the board at you. So these fundamentals become instinct to you.

Other GMs suggest the same thing. There is the old Russian school of chess that suggests you have to learn "300 key positions" that contain all fundamental chess knowledge. One book taking this approach is GM-RAM by GM Ziatdinov, where he gives you 250+ positions and a number of master games, and that's it. You are left to learn them on your own. Those two positions I posted are from his book. I don't remember where I read or heard it, but it was a master player who suggested it would take around 10,000 hours to correctly master the 300 key positions. Not every position is the same of course, but that comes out to around 30-40 hours per key position, which is more than 10 times the work that you suggested you might put in.

I think all of us underestimate the work required to be successful. Everyone wants to be successful, until they go to work with someone who is. That is one of the things the master responses are also telling you, that you have to study things very deeply. It's not enough to stumble your way through key positions like a Phildor or Lucena position, you have to know it the same way you walk or talk, without thinking, on pure instinct, and that takes a lot of time.

There is the story of Isaac Newton, who would start reading a book until the point where he did not understand. At that point, he would start from the beginning and re-read the entire book. I'm sure that took a very long time, but it's the right way. You would be better off reading a single book many times over and thinking about the concepts deeply. My System may only have small sections on certain topics, but it is worth stopping and spending days thinking about that topic. Find master games and review them, see how the topic plays out in real games, see what the master annotations say. It's not enough to just know that doubled pawns are bad. You need to see dozens of examples (or more) of how to punish your opponent's doubled pawns. Improving at chess is about mastering every concept, a slow process. There is no quick path to mastery. The only quick path is to 1600 

For me it was a big turning point, realizing that the way to improve is to master key positions and fully understand key games. It took many years for this idea to sink in. I'm sure I had heard it suggested many times, but it did not "click" for me for a long time.

So after saying all of this, my suggestion is, you should get a coach. Here's how I would break it down:

1. Go it alone - Spend 20-30 hours per week, maybe studying the wrong thing, and studying the wrong way. You spend a huge number of hours and only see small gains.
2. Get a coach - Spend 1 hour per week with a coach, spend 10 hours per week studying the right thing, studying the right way, spend 9-19 hours sleeping, exercising, and relaxing. You will spend less time and see more consistent gains. It's a huge shortcut to have a good coach tell you what things will benefit you the most. By definition, you don't know what areas will benefit you the most, and you can waste years until you stumble upon the next big thing holding you back. Meanwhile a good coach can tell you right away, or after a week or two. Many people say they can't afford a coach, but I think it's incredibly wasteful to not spend the money and then go waste 30 hours a week thinking you can do it on your own. A coach will also be able to tell you things you will never know on your own, like "In order to improve further, you will have to spend twice as much time studying". You would never know that on your own, and you might decide at that point it's better to spend time with your family or whatever is important to you. Without a coach, you would keep on wasting a lot of time studying chess and never improve.

What do you think about all of that?

Thanks.  I think you make very good points.  I am starting to have a list of books that I plan to master (i.e. learn the positions well and be able to recognize the patterns in those books) to reach 2000.  Once I reach 2000, I might add additional books.  Those books are:

Openings:

White: Ruy Lopez: Move by Move 

Play Bb5 (Rossolimo/Moscow) by Palliser

[Will supplement as necessary.]

 

Black: Play the Caro-Kann by Houska (Been using this for 4-5 years now)

Play the Semi-Slav by Vigorito

Repertoire for Black and White by Kaufman (Name is something like that - I read his chapter on Semi-Slav).

 

Tactics:

Basic Tactics: Back to Basics: Tactics by Heisman

Advanced Tactics: How to Beat Your Dad in Chess by Chandler (covers 50 or so key mating positions)

Calculation: [Looking for a book to read and master - let me know if you have any suggestions]

 

Positional Play:

General: Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy by Watson (critiquing "My System" by Nimzowitsch)

Pawn Play: Pawn Structure Chess by Soltis (because it covers the openings that I play)

 

Endings

General: Complete Endgame Course by Silman

R+P: Survival Guide to Rook Endings by Emms

Strategy: Endgame Strategy by Shereshevsky

Will read on my own until I reach 1700-1800.  Below that, I find that my mistakes are obvious enough for me to find on my own.  Above that, I would strongly consider getting a coach.

One follow-up question I have is: How much should I focus on positions from openings that I play?  Or should I focus on instructive positions in general?  For example, I primarily play the Caro-Kann against e4 (sometimes I play the Sicilian for fun).  I almost never play the French or another opening with a ...e6/...d5 structure.  I do play 1 e4 as White but I rarely encounter the French.  So, does it make sense for me to study more games from Caro-Kann positions, such as by reading Karpov games, or for me to study positional play, e.g., in general, which might cover positions that I will seldom encounter such as ones from the French, the KID, or the Benoni?

By the way, I strongly agree with the idea of memory banks of patterns.  That is why I like the book "How to Beat Your Dad in Chess."  Instead of covering weird or obscure positions, it covers 50 very common mating and attacking motifs.  Almost every Tactics Trainer puzzle I see has elements of one or more motifs from that book.

Under calculation you could try Dvoretsky's School of Chess Excellence 2: Tactical Play. 

Don't just study games from openings you play but rather from players you want to learn from.  Lasker and Capablanca played some lines that would be considered dated today but the games are still worth investigating. 

Look at 2300 and above games where white convincingly defeats a Basman's Defense or black winning against 1.b3 to learn playing against rare systems.  This shouldn't take up too much time, but don't just get familiar with common stuff.  People who play things like 1.e4,g5?! rely upon their better familiarity with the positions so why not mitigate it as much as reasonably possible? 

Agreed with the pattern memory banks, they are your ticket to unconscious competence.  I remember getting these two positions completely correct in Secrets of Pawn Endings because I remember them from Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual (the first I got almost immediately because the chapter title basically gave away the answer, but still):

I don't think you should limit yourself to studying positions only from openings you play. The same thing will happen as when you just memorize without understanding: you encounter an unfamiliar situation and crumble. At this point you just want to get better all around. You could even get by just fine ignoring specific openings and just playing opening principles until you're closer to 2000. In fact you may be better off with that approach, at this level, since it will expose you to many different situations. Struggling with a situation in a game and then learning from your failure is a sure fire way to burn that concept in your mind. You will never forget it. That's not the case when you just read about something in a book.

Yeah, I definitely agree.  I find that I learn the most when I take a game I played, especially one I lost, and annotate it.