25 years old & learning chess - my practice blog

I am going to disagree. "slow and steady" is good for chess book publishers...anyone who gets really good at chess, gets the basics...a book or two to let you know how much you will probably never achieve...and if a bit of a fire has been lit under you....you PLAY AND PLAY AND PLAY, tearing apart your games (ideally with someone a good deal better than you) and then PLAY some more. Progress - REAL progress comes in leaps, not 'slow and steady'. Slow and steady gives you too much time to get mired in mediocrity and thinking habits that need to improve...before they become second nature. Keep pushing your comfort zone and PLAY. THAT is where progress really follows.

I agree with what you're saying here but I disagree with you saying "slow and steady" isn't the way to make progress,what other way is there?  Yes progress does come after a period of time,but almost every thing having to do with Chess is slow.  It's not how much you study,it's how you study the material that you have.  I deal with alot of tactics and even I am guilty of moving too fast without really understanding the tactic,that's why they say "study" Chess tactics and not just solve Chess tactics,there is a difference.  Nowadays I try and slow down,especially if it's something a bit on the complicated side,I just spent about 20 minutes or so on this one problem in my study book,having to deal with a knight sacrifice on f7 (the winning side was white) and dragging the king into the open with a barrage of checks,the author of my book often leaves incomplete answers which seems like a bad thing and overall it is but I turn it into a good thing because then I can learn more from the puzzle.  I can go to the next puzzle or I can dig deeper and go through each line and in some cases I come up with better lines then the author does.  

So yeah alot of this takes tons of time and is "slow" and "steady" so to speak,patterns aren't learned over night,it comes after going over the same patterns over and over,only then are they learned.  

Also,I think too much play,which you emphasized isn't all that great either,I'd say one learns more by studying,in some cases,I know I certainly learned way more studying then I ever did playing but I speak for myself on that one. 

How to win a "won game"

Nothing hurts chess player more than not winning a "won game". I had two of those occasions today while playing 30|0 tournament. I scored 2/4 points, but in all honesty 4/4 was there for the taking. What happened? I got sloppy, tired and too relaxed. In the last two games I had a crushing position, and I failed to convert both of them. In first one I accidentally walked my king in a mate after a long round of checks from a lone queen, and in second one I somehow butchered a completely winning endgame. I tried to analyse both of the games, where I went wrong, but it was a tedious task, being in such a tilt. Knowing that I should've won both of the games; I had clearly winning position, I had plenty of time left on the clock, I had everything. Except patience. I just felt like the games were already over and my opponents should just resign already, instead of wasting everyone's time. What happens next? You start overlooking simple threats, stop calculating moves ahead and just move your pieces around, waiting to win the game. Oh no no, that's not how you play chess. Or atleast shouldn't play. Lesson learned. Never relax before the game is over. And don't try to play four 30|0 games in a row after an 8 hour day at work, when you're already feeling tired.

A small rant out of frustration, but in all honesty, I got nobody else but myself to blame for those losses. Well, at least they build character, and perhaps next time I get multiple checks in a row, I plan my walking route to safety all the way through... And on the positive side, I did get a winning position against 4 opponents in 4 games with similar rating in one tournament. If only I could also convert them more cleanly...

Agreed,thanks for sharing,if I can get in a few good games a day I'll be happy.  I say you really don't have no more then that,an intense game will require alot of thought.  I'd say 90 mins per side and 40 minutes after the first 40 moves or so,that's standard tournament time controls.  However most people on here will play 30 min games and some times that's just not enough time so it builds bad habits and you end up rushing your move,instead of taking the time to really think about the move and why you played it etc. 

Progress report:


By the way, I do review all the lines always when available. :-)

That's the way it's supposed to be,you're always supposed to go over the lines. 

Perhaps I wasn't clear...because I agree with you that it's "how you study the material you have". But what I am saying is that you can study until the proverbial cows come home....but, the thing of most importance it to take that fairly rudimentary positional or tactical knowledge and look to apply it in your own games....actual 'play'. More knowledge will follow on its own.

What is of most importance is to take that...and run with it - forcing yourself to actually 'do' over the board. 

A 2400 player who I've know for decades just a few years ago gave me some advice. I asked: 'as you've known me for years and we've played each other a lot...what should I  (2000 or so for a LONG time)  do to get better?'

His suggestion: PLAY A LOT...force yourself to go into unclear positions where you have to take what you already know...manipulate pieces in your mind, and work at continually getting a better 'feel' for playing the game.

Hey, books are great...I've got 700 or so. Seriously. I've picked thru good chunks of most, read cover to cover probably 30. But getting good at being a CHESS PLAYER is not about knowledge...that you get a good basic education in, but should then just play a lot...seriously playing, not a lot of blitz...take your self along journeys that you are really involved with and you will gain more knowledge as you play and are able to appreciate how tough chess is more and more...and get better at actually playing. Playing well beats knowledge any day.

One more story: long ago a 2200 player told me I (a 1900 player at the time) knew a lot more about chess than he did. My reply...yes, maybe so...but you PLAY IT BETTER.    Words to the wise...take it or not.

I hear you but again I don't totally agree with you.  My father who knows next to nothing about Chess,outside of the movement of the pieces,was saying the same thing you said your friend said.  I am a grand patzer,maybe compared to you and definitely your friend the rated 2400 player.  However,I do love the game and I have played a ton of games and studied a few and I believe that Chess is a knowledge game,meaning the more knowledge or the more you know about the game,the better.

I believe you do need to get into uncomfortable situations and positions that you don't like and just overall see how you do,using your knowledge,but that's the keyword there,knowledge.  I believe the more knowledge you have,or to put it in more simple terms,the more you know about the game the better you'll play.  

I remember doing some study on Chess strategy a while back and I came across this site that went something like this: 

A little knowledge=So so plan

intermediate knowledge= Better plan

Tons of knowledge=Master plan or even plans! 

So the author of that site believes what I believe,the more you know about the game,the better you will perform,at least he believes so in the realm of strategy but I doubt he'd argue that the same wouldn't hold true for the realm of Chess tactics.   

Now before you misunderstand me,I am not saying that,that knowledge will take the place of regular over the board practice,that goes without say.   However if you want to perform well I believe the more you know about the game,the better equipped you are to handle any and all sorts of positions that you'll encounter.  The more strategy you know,the better your plans,same with positional knowledge and it's the same with tactics,the more tactics you know,the better,the more you have a chance at spotting/seeing them,which will all lead to more won games.   

I believe that 60% study and 40% play,might be optimal for steady improvement, so with that ratio,or well percentage,you clearly see that I favor study.   At the end there you said playing well beats knowledge,well the irony there is that you need the knowledge to play well.  

Also the last bit there about you knowing more then he did about Chess,that can't be true,if you knew more then he did,then you would be the better player,now maybe you knew more and didn't know how to apply it,which to me suggest that you really didn't know it all that well to begin with.  I know you probably don't want to hear that and I'm interested in a debate with you but not an argument(There is a difference!),it's just my feelings on the subject,my "words to the wise", take it or not! 

Knowledge is important...but 'ability' to put any knowledge (you don't needs 'tons of it') into practice with some consistency...is better than anything as far as fairly rapid progress.

Think of it this way: Computers of even say 15 yrs ago were capable of beating World Class GM's. NOT because of their knowledge (GM's have far more), but because they could take the fairly rudimentary knowledge built into them....but because they were so good at calculating deep and fast.... That is to say, they could actually play a better game of chess....stringing together a series of moves without very many tactical mistakes or too many positional ones.
You may say I am comparing apples and oranges. But no...chess is a game of ability...calculating (not necessarily 'tactics') and mentally judging 'this line is better than that'....is what one should concentrate on. You get better at those things by playing lots of games, forcing yourself into positions where you test your abilities....not by 'swatting up knowledge'like a librarian.

There is a saying: Those who can...'do', those who can't....'teach'. Teaching and absorbing 'kowledge' is the easy thing....but chess is a game that is played.

I do find it useful, and think going through those same exercises over and over again has increased my ability to spot certain tactical motifs and patterns. Chess is a complex game, and when studying multiple sources, watching videos, reading articles and playing games, it's hard to say what is the thing that really makes the difference. But I do have my highest ever tactics rating here on chess.com at 2083 at the moment. I'm not sure is it the benefit of doing a lot of tactics training, or the 1001 exercises book, but I would guess it's the result of both of them. Also I have already had some patterns in the book that I haven't faced in the tactics trainer before. So it's definitely useful. I would say even more so, if I wasn't such an eager tactics trainer on chess.com. For someone who does less tactics training, I think the book would be a great place to start. The first chapters are as easy as you'd think, but it gets trickier, when motifs change from simple checkmates to forks, discoveries and such. Great book in my opinion. :-)

I guess you read my mind with that "You may say I am comparing apples and oranges",you are somewhat trying to compare two disimilar things and the simple reason is because computers and humans play Chess completely different. Computers play Chess based on the "lines" that it "knows" or had programmed into it, and so it simply just calculates everything,humans,however on the other hand play Chess based on "Pattern Recognition". A computer is probably more interested in not making any tactical errors (even easy computers won't let you "catch" them with basic tactics),contrast that to the human who looks at the positional advantages of the position and makes concrete stactic and dynamic plans based on that knowledge,Chess patterns being apart of that knowledge. The human draws on his/her vast and deep understanding of Strategic,tactical and positional patterns and only then begins to calculate the best "line" However,if you think about both computers and humans,one is superior in calculating and one is superior in "imagery" or "patterns" but what they both have in common is that it's all based on "Chess knowledge".

So if you agree with that so far,where do you think that pattern recognition comes from? A ton of playing??,hmm,not necessarily. I can definitely say I've learned more about Chess studying it,then playing it,and that's not opinion that's just a fact. See I don't really understand your argument or your side of the debate here,you're saying knowledge is important but what's more important is to be able to use that knowledge well. Well yeah that should go without say right,the MORE knowledge you have though,the better,who do you think will be the overall better Chess player:

A) The person who has a ton of strategic and tactical knowledge,any other words,a person who is proficient in both. (Let us assume that Person A plays alot less then Person B)

or

B) The person who has limited strategic and tactical knowledge but plays alot of Chess.

I guess this is where you and I disagree friend because I'm going with A) and from what I understand about your side of the debate,you're going with B), as in you feel that play is more important then knowledge.

You see I view "play" as in using knowledge you already have and that's great but studying is ADDING to what you already know and building upon that,so when you do "play" again,you're going to be that much better. Now I've said it once and I'll say it again,I am NOT saying that studying will take the place of OTB (Over the board) play. So,don't misunderstand and think I'm saying that all you need to do is just study Chess and not play at all because that's not what I'm saying at all. I am however saying that there should be more study then play,I wouldn't even do a 50/50 split,although that probably might be optimal for some.
I am interested in increasing my knowledge most of the time,strategically,tactically,positional,end games or whatever. The more I learn,as I said,the MORE I can use against YOU,my opponent,during our game. Also the more I learn,the more I'll understand it,because ideas do repeat themselves,we have a name for that,we call them "Chess Patterns",which again, most likely will only mean that I'll be better equipped to use them against you during our games.

I'll present you with another question:

Who do you think will be better at back rank mating someone:

A) The person who has been over several books involving all sorts of back rank mate patterns and understands them inside and out. (Again assume that person A plays alot less then person B)
or

B) The person who has been over a few back rank mate patterns but understands the concept of "back rank mate" but plays alot.

Nah,...Again I'm going with A,.....I hate to bring rap into this but if it's appropriate then why not right? There is a rapper out there and his entire stage name is an Acronym,his name is KRS ONE. KRS-ONE, Knowledge,Reigns,Supreme,Over,Nearly,Everyone and nothing could be more true in our favorite Royal game we call Chess. I believe it,I have experience with it,as I said,probably 90% of what I know about Chess,I've learned externally,meaning I learned it by "booking it" as they say. Maybe the other 10 or so percent I learned while playing a game and there are a few things but most of my knowledge comes from the "books". Also I want to also state in closing,I'm talking about a thorough and full understanding of the game,not half a$$,I'm talking about study and not just "reading" there is a difference. I'll take that player any day,over the player who knows one or two things and just "plays"alot. Chess is a game to be STUDIED and then played. :) ,well,if one wants to play well at least.

P.S. ....I know you probably don't play fighting games but I feel the exact same opposite with them,meaning that I feel that play is way more important then "booking it". :)

Look at it this way, since it may be a more obvious way of getting my point across: older GM's (and the rest of us who have played for a long time!) accumulate knowledge....yet their 'ability' plateaus and even declines over time, even if they continue playing a good deal. We really don't continue to progress...we stall and regress. It's...natural....even if we stuff more knowledge into our heads.  Get good at calculation/evaluation 'during play' by forcing yourself to and that will take you far....'more knowledge' will be nice, but it will come of it's own accord as you get better at playing games of chess.

As a (slight) aside, I would point to a trend I have seen in the back of New In Chess where they pose questions for players. One is 'what books have had a great influence on you'. More and more you see players say they don't really study books. They play a lot and the advent of the internet makes it easy to continually test and improve their abilities and thus get better. Even the older players more often cite 'game collections' of great players...rarely does one cite a 'manual'.  

While playing a lot and calculation ability   are important for improvement, I agree with chess lover that chess knowledge/patterns is a very important factor for chess improvement.   In fact I will say that studying is more important factor than playing a lot for improvement. For example when my 7 years old nephew studied chess and learn chess for the first time,  he  beat his father who has more games than him. What can you learn from playing thousand games/trial and error, you will learn it in 1 hour of study . For example ,after playing many games you might  learn some type of mate  patterns. If you look at  tactics book, you will learn it without spending so many game just to realize these mate patterns.

To quote kasparov

Tactics involve calculations that can tax the human brain, but when you boil them down, they are actually the simplest part of chess and are almost trivial compared to strategy.

It is no use how far ahead you can calculate, if you don't know what you are looking for.  Before i calculate, i look first at the general strategy of the position.

 You can't just brute force calculate   and find the correct path on your own with these complex book rook endgame knowledge. In fact it took brilliant minds and many decades of playing before somebody derived these book rook knowledge. Even today, many GM make mistakes in these rook endgames. It took decades of practice and great players before these general patterns/knowledge are formed.  So chances are, in your lifetime,you won't discover on your own these important patterns/knowledge. For me calculation and knowledge are both important for improvement.

I also disagree with this trend that Cornfed is talking. I have read many recent interviews of young players and gms mentioning that they read many chess books. In fact one of the youngest us national master mentioned that Silman's How to Re asses is a big factor in his improvement. Top players like Caruana and Wesley also read/study many chess books.

Another thing as you grow older your calculating ability actually regresses and you slow down with your calculating ability. With chess knowledge, they are still there even when you grow old. So it is actually chess knowledge that is helping your more as you grow older.  But of course with old age, you slow down and that puts you in time trouble. You are also more prone to tactical blunders.

Start of a new month, ratings update

Ok, so it's 1st of August and I have played chess for almost 8 months. Time for a ratings update. It looks I've still been able to keep climbing steadily, even though I can feel like every rating point gain is becoming twice as difficult as it was before. I have 4 months left, before I have played chess for a year. What do you guys think my rating (avg. play) will be 4 months in? I went from 918 to 1451 in 8 months. Can I get past 1600 in the remaining 4 months, or will 1500 be a big enough hurdle to beat? I think I'm still aiming towards 1500 avg. play (average from bullet, blitz, rapid and daily) and if I get beyond that I'm really happy (passing 1400 was already a big benchmark) for my year in chess. 


Thank you all again for feedback, luck wishes and all the interesting discussion on this thread!

@cornfed. I already told calculation is also important. But for me chess study is more important than playing a lot for improvement.  Also sorry, unless you can give  full stats  off all the living chess players, what you told about the trend is a speculation. Also many of these young masters have coaches. So coaches are good replacement for a book. But you can't have significant improvement on your own  just playing many games.

Here is a link where it is sited some of Wesley's favorite books.

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chesscollection?cid=1027394

Also I am Filipino, so I know that Wesley read many books as I follow his career.

Carlsen also read/studied many books.

Caruana's favorite book.

https://twitter.com/johansalomon/status/840258758152445953

Here Nakamura recommending a chess book

https://twitter.com/gmhikaru/status/254596453098479618

As you can see, the top players in the world study/read chess books.

You really do not seem to understand, but that is okay. 

I'm glad to see that I am not the only one who thinks along these lines,I presented the same argument,in that,playing many games may not garner much improvement because one is using what he/she already knows,studying on the other hand,adds to one's chess knowledge.