Would this work?

http://www.amazon.com/gp/richpub/syltguides/fullview/R18UDQRMTTE82J/ref=cm_syt_dtpa_f_3_rdssss0?pf_rd_p=253471301&pf_rd_s=sylt-center&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=1886846766&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=16EBA89TJCB47VF1HDQ9

So I just read this article and it said that you need 50,000 position to become a master. Each game you study has about 40 patterns. 50,000/40=1250 games. With that in mind, assuming I do 100 tactics everyday, study opening (when necessary), study the middlegame and endgames, and go over 10 annotated games a day, does that mean it will only take me 125 days (approx. one third of a year) to become a master. My rating right now is somwhere in the 1450-1500 range.

Dunno, I'll check.

I'll message you january 15

I don't even know what I'm doing with one position...lol, much less 50,000 positions.

Sorry, please forgive my self-effacing humor. It is necessary for personal growth.

Why wouldn't 50,000 positions work?

Heck, I didn't even know there were 50,000 positions.

Estragon, I don't know what you mean by "If you could learn ten positions a day- and this seems beyond most people's abilities". One game already has 40 different positions. So wouldn't going over annotated game do the trick?

i think if going over one game a day for four years would make you a GM then we would have a lot more of them running around. 

one game can have like a billion positions if you go thru all the theoretical lines of it. thats why just memorizing move X on a certain game might be a little useless. Nonetheless 50,000 positions is a ridiculous amount of positions to memorize and remember. considering i can barely remember all the opening lines of the main openings i play even, so 50,000 different ones is pushing it a little lol. That's why people don't typically learn every position possible like you're planning on i imagine. just understand the concepts and ideas of the position first. should get you started a little and be a little easier on your brain.

So do you really think the 50,000 positions master know count all the inbetween crap, e.g. the diagram below would count as 2?  No way, they are 50,000 relevant and meaningful positions.

Because most high level games follow primarily one logical thread, the number of relevant positions in one 40 move GM game would easily be less than 5.  If it was a highly theoretical dule, sharp middlegame, and instructive endgame (a rare all in one gem) it would still contain less than 10.

These diagrams are so silly -- I usually insert games with no moves.  Anyway it's obvious white's not to move when black's in check.

Like backyard star said though, before you go over GM games for those few very meaningful positions, it's better to understand concepts which allow you to play a range of positions effectively.

After the fundamentals are solid, then you can study and memorize GM games to add a few positions here and there.

hmm, so I get what it means by "position". So taking from what orangehonda said, one annotated game has less than 5. So on average, let's say there are 3 useful positions. Divide 50,000 by 3 brings 17,000. There are about 913 days in 2 and a half years. Assuming each day I go over 20 annotated games and understand all the concepts behind it, would it be possible to become a master? I would also like to clarify "master". I'm aiming for national master (2200).

If you can go over 20 annotated games a day, and fully understand all the concepts, you're already a master.

Not to mention having a lot of spare time.

If you want to absorb the GM game deeply you'd want to spend awhile with it -- like others noted 20 master games a day is way too much.  It would be like saying I want to learn and really play well 20 new and challenging pieces of music a day.  If you can do that, you're already a great player.

And GM games at the sub-master level really can't be your main method of improvement, although they make a great addition to whatever you're looking into.  But before you have solid fundamentals even annotated games will be too difficult.  An amateur will be too distracted by the basic moves, asking "why that move" to fundamentally good moves and won't be able to tell any difference when an important position arises.

Besides, what good is it to fine tune your understanding when you don't have the basic concepts down really well yet.  Anyone below master regularly makes fundamental positional errors (errors where no calculation is needed to see that it's a bad move).

50,000 positions... average of 45 moves per game, if you could memorize in advance all your future games towards becoming world champion... yes it only takes 50,000 positions (and some positions you'll face more than once)

draw game.i think so

Interesting sub-topic: how do you learn a position? Has Kramnik really learned the position after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6?

There was also a similar concept in GM-RAM, I don't remember the author of that. It claimed the book consisted of positions that every GM ought to know, and once you learn them, you'd be pretty good.

I agree with estragon's post above, I think studying positions, middlegame structures etc. can't hurt. But we have to admit "learning 50000" is put very vaguely.

Clearly not:

Looks like even Kramnik has a thing or two to learn about the meaning of "strategically position."

Sure, dig up a game he lost five years ago. One of his five losses in twenty years :p