Yusupov and the Older Lower Rated Player

Yusupov himself seemed to me to indicate about 3 hours per chapter. At 4.5 hours per week, I guess that would be about 33 chapters in five months.

Where do you get that number?

So what is that? Somewhere around 7 minutes per chapter? I could skip the tests and just try to make the moves on a board (without understanding) and I suspect that I would still average well over 7 minutes per chapter.

http://www.qualitychess.co.uk/ebooks/Build-up-Your-Chess-1-exceprt.pdf

Which number?

Did Yusupov and/or quality chess say anything about more time per chapter in the later books?

Last night I played a game as Black against Komodo 12.1.1 at skill level 9. Since the skill levels start at 0, this is actually skill level 10 of 20 and coincides with computer10 on this site. I missed a tactic early on that would have been bad for me. Fortunately, the computer missed it too. Other than that I'm pretty happy with how things went. I apply a number of things I have been learning from Yusupov throughout. Time control was two minutes per move, accumulated.

Here is the annotated game.

For what it is worth, the analysis here said I played best move 68.8% of the time and 50 of my 54 moves were excellent. I had 3 good moves and 1 mistake. Komodo was similar saying I had the best move 65% of the time.

Thanks! I occasionally play at the local club. And I have played daily games here. But I find daily games to be a very different beast since I can and do move the pieces around doing analysis. Plus the opening phase of the game tends to be very different due to the use of books/databases.

I have been working on Chapter 20 on weak squares and weak points.  This material is very challenging for me. I am down to the last exercise and if I get it, I pass the chapter. If I don't, I will have failed my first chapter.

I have been thinking about why this material is so challenging. Basically, if you have a chapter on say double attacks, there are a very limited number of ways that this possibility can be made to occur. The same is true of other tactical motifs. Likewise, if you have a chapter on endings, it is usually pretty clear what you need to make happen, even if making it happen is difficult.

The same is not true of weak squares and weak points. In the typical exercise, there are many weak points or weak squares and it isn't necessarily clear at all which will be the most profitable to pursue. And in some cases, you can fail the exercise by utilizing a weakness that isn't THE weakness that Yusupov wants you to exploit. (In fairness, his solutions do end up doing better when checked by engines, but it maybe only by a small margin (well under a pawn).

I actually found the 3 star problems more tractable than some of the two star problems.

In some sense it really doesn't matter if I fail or pass the chapter. The difference in the knowledge I will have gained is minimal. On the other hand, I REALLY don't want to fail. And so I keep staring at that last problem looking for the INSIGHT that will suddenly simplify it and make the answer obvious. (If you do tactics problems, I'm sure you know what I mean).

At some point, I'm going to probably just need to decide I have spent enough time on it and move on. If I get to that point, I will have probably failed.

I do get the feeling that if I could completely internalize this chapter and "Get It", that it would significantly impact the strength of my play. That is true even though I have already been utilizing some of these concepts before in my playing. (For example, outposts really depend on utilizing or creating weak squares).

Way back when I created this thread, the question was whether a weaker and older player such as myself could actually utilize Yusupov or would it simply be beyond me. At this point, the answer is pretty clear. At least the first book is doable with a suitable amount of hardwork (lots of it) and dedication. I highly recommend these books because:

1) The learning is active

2) The diagrams and exercises are first rate

3) The scope of the material is broad and well thought out

There was some question in my mind how important it was to follow his suggestions on how to use the material. E.g. was setting up a board really necessary. Having now completed most of the first book and having done some of material more properly than others, my considered opinion is that his suggestions for using the material are wise. It isn't that you cannot go through the material in some other way. But doing it his way IS likely at least in my case to have the best impact.

Don't buy that nonsense you won't make much progress because of your age. I just turned 61, and raised my daily chess rating from about 985 two years ago to breaking 1400 multiple times. I study and play a lot, so I expect to continue to improve. I hate people saying "You can't do this because (fill in the blank)." I've always used that as motivation. By the way, check out "The Geezers" in clubs. We're a fun, active group and have an internal tournament going right now.

The one area where you will really benefit from Yusupov's advice is to wean yourself off the easy computer analysis.

Analyse your games without any engine support. Make your own conclusions. In order to wean yourself from the engines, publish your analysis here without having checked it. Of course, if you were to publish your analysis publicly, you'd want to computer check your lines, but that's not the purpose of this thread, is it?

My old teacher said "Modern Chess Strategy" is enough to reach ELO 2000. Shereshevsky's endgame book covers the endgame very well too. Keep your openings simple and solid, e.g. Colle, Torre Attack, Stonewall Attack, Dutch Stonewall, and French Fort Knox. Play 10-30 minute games and do the 1-minute quick analysis and find out why in order to eliminate those gross "Blunders". Then work on eliminating those "Mistakes". Remember the old saying... the player who wins is the player who makes the next to last blunder! This is especially true to us amateurs (< ELO 2000). Never too late to learn!

One can see a Pachman sample at:

http://store.doverpublications.com/0486202909.html

https://www.chess.com/article/view/quotendgame-strategyquot-by-mikhail-shereshevsky

"... one will not learn the basics from [Shereshevsky's 'Endgame Strategy'] at all; ... I like this book a lot, but it has more to do with transitions from the middlegame than with endings themselves." - IM John Watson (2000)

http://theweekinchess.com/john-watson-reviews/endings-endings-endings

"... The second part of [The Shereshevsky Method] is a concentrated version of Endgame Strategy, ..."

https://www.newinchess.com/media/wysiwyg/product_pdf/9056.pdf

Maybe I should mention that I was rated about 1700 and after one year I reached 1900. I noticed that the teacher was emphasizing "how to think" and "what to focus on" as opposed to "how to convert a Lucena position"... that I did on my own. He didn't cover too much openings, just survive and get a playable middlegame/endgame. 

While it is possible I would benefit from studying Pachman and Shereshevsky instead of Yusupov, I'm going to stick with the Yusupov for my main source of instruction. I could be wrong but I think it is probably important NOT to hop around from one thing to another continually looking for "THE" answer. To put it another way, I think it may be important to create a plan and then stick to it unless it becomes obvious the plan simply is not working (not the case here).

I'm sure from the many good things I have heard about Pachman, a good plan could be built around his work as well. That just isn't the route I have decided to go.

My plan for better or worse:

1) Yusupov

2) 10 tactics a day over at chess tempo (standard) so untimed.

3) For Endings, I have gone through the material in Silman's Complete Endgame Course through my rating (and then some). There is of course also the material in Yusupov. I also have DEM, which is actually a good supplement for some of the Yusupov since they approach it similarly.

I do have some other material I occasionally use, but really, the bulk of what I do is encompassed above and will probably remain so until I have really good reason to switch. (For example, I have Silman's How To Reassess Your Chess and The Amateur's Mind).

Good idea, sticking to one plan.

There are many paths to mastery, but constantly switching paths is usually a recipe for disaster. The other books mentioned are excellent, but stay true to your chosen path. The best books are ones that you read and study.

Here is the analysis from a game I played last night. Time controls were 2 minutes a move.

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/game-analysis/playing-against-komodo-skill-9-equivalent-to-computer10

It is probably time for me to up the skill level of Komodo another notch. Current rating of the equivalent computer10 on this site is 1720 in rapid.

Well, I ended up failing my first chapter. I had strongly considered the correct move, but found a line I thought refuted it. It turns out there was a refutation to my refutation. Doh!

Likewise, I thought I had really solved it. Everything seemed to click into place. But I missed a refutation of that line.

Such is the way it goes. Onward and upward.

In good news, I have been doing relatively well at my tactics training on chess tempo recently. I hit a new peak of 1655 the other day, although I'm back down to 1631 at the moment. That is still very close to my old peak.

Here's a book from my chess library that may shed some light on similar experiences...

https://www.amazon.com/Chess-Master-at-Any-Age/dp/0938650580

If anything, it'll give you some insight on what works and what doesn't.

If I remember correctly, that book contains my candidate for the strangest advice to ever appear in a chess book: After getting into time trouble, punish yourself by taking money out of your wallet and tearing it up.