Improving my chess game

[incognito]

Try the advice in this two-part article from chess cafe. It's not sexy, but it will improve your game tremendously. Even if you think it won't.

http://www.chesscafe.com/text/skittles148.pdf
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/skittles150.pdf

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
Try the advice in this two-part article from chess cafe. It's not sexy, but it will improve your game tremendously. Even if you think it won't.

http://www.chesscafe.com/text/skittles148.pdf
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/skittles150.pdf

[/ QUOTE ]

Michael de la Maza- an old aquaintance of mine from the Boylston Chess Club in Boston. He posted on 2+2 back in 2002 (or maybe 2003) as mdlm. His posts in the Beginners forum about developing a system to beat p*k*r were some of the most insane posts ever. It was an extraordinary fiasco.

I haven't read those articles. But, I'm very familar with Michael's study plan. I talked to him a lot during tournaments as he developed it himself. I never liked what I saw. But, there's no doubt it worked incredibly well for Michael. His USCF rating did indeed jump quickly and he ended up winning either the U1800 or U2000 section of the World Open (probably in 2003).



Here's a link to an NVG thread about Michael's posts on 2+2.

Link to News, Views, and Gossip thread

[incognito]

[ QUOTE ]
But, there's no doubt it worked incredibly well for Michael. His USCF rating did indeed jump quickly and he ended up winning either the U1800 or U2000 section of the World Open (probably in 2003).

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not a regular tourney player, but I play almost every day on FICS. I think the real lesson of his system is that until you have tactical mastery (or at least tactical competency), anything else you study at chess isn't very useful in practice. It doesn't matter how well you understand positional concepts, or the ideas behind the openings if you repeatedly lose pieces to simple tactical tricks. This seems obvious in retrospect, but I just wasn't there until I read Michael's piece.

I admit I didn't have the patience for the entire program he laid out, but a condensed version over two months saw my blitz rating on FICS jump from ~1700 to ~2050. The ability to quickly recognize tactical patterns is obviously even more important in blitz, but I've definitely improved.

[atrifix]

I am familiar with de la Maza's study plan. I don't particularly like it and don't recommend it. It worked well for him, but anyone with the discipline to study the same number of hours as de la Maza did would probably get a benefit regardless of what they studied.

I was completely unaware that he had ever attempted to do the same with poker. Thanks for the link; those posts were great humor. He's certainly one of the most adamant people that I know of.

[ QUOTE ]
I am familiar with de la Maza's study plan. I don't particularly like it and don't recommend it. It worked well for him, but anyone with the discipline to study the same number of hours as de la Maza did would probably get a benefit regardless of what they studied.

[/ QUOTE ]

Disagree. The crux of de la Maza's plan is studying tactics, which gets much more bang for the buck than studying opening theory or rare endgames.

Also recommend this article, by NM Heisman:

An Improvement Plan - Dan Heisman

Welcome to chess, the inconstant lover [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img] GL with your studies.

ScottieK

[atrifix]

[ QUOTE ]
Disagree. The crux of de la Maza's plan is studying tactics, which gets much more bang for the buck than studying opening theory or rare endgames.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think studying tactics is good for developing pattern recognition skills, but it's only one piece of a rounded study program. Not that people should memorize MCO, but training yourself to do 1000 problems a day and think like a finite state automoton probably contributes less to your game than understanding how to play rook endings. Just IMHO, of course. To each his own.

[gumpzilla]

Basic endgames are probably the thing other than tactics that a lot of people would benefit from studying some. They're definitely less flashy than learning cool sounding opening variations, so they don't really get the love. But, if you suck tactically, the likelihood of getting to an endgame that's going to require some theoretical knowledge is somewhat lower, so it seems tactics should still be boss. I'm only a rather casual player, though, so take my comments with a grain of salt.

[ QUOTE ]
Basic endgames are probably the thing other than tactics that a lot of people would benefit from studying some. They're definitely less flashy than learning cool sounding opening variations, so they don't really get the love. But, if you suck tactically, the likelihood of getting to an endgame that's going to require some theoretical knowledge is somewhat lower, so it seems tactics should still be boss. I'm only a rather casual player, though, so take my comments with a grain of salt.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I think studying tactics is good for developing pattern recognition skills, but it's only one piece of a rounded study program. Not that people should memorize MCO, but training yourself to do 1000 problems a day and think like a finite state automoton probably contributes less to your game than understanding how to play rook endings. Just IMHO, of course. To each his own.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, endgames are important as well. Basic endgames (K&Q/R vs K, K&P vs K, some others) are essential. Nothing breaks my heart more than seeing kids with K and Q unable to mate a lone K. I see it every year at a scholastic tournament I direct, and it's one of the first things I teach my students.

R&P endgames get more important as you go up the rating ladder, but I've never had to prove Lucena or Philidor's over the board. The ideas behind them have come in handy now and again though.

You don't need to do 1000 problems a day. If you're serious, 30 minutes a day of pattern recognition and reinforcement with a problems book should be sufficient (which reminds me, I'm rusty.) The goal is to learn and eventually memorize a basic pattern and be able to recognize it in a game position almost immediately. It's much more reliable than calculating "from scratch," but that ability comes in handy as well (especially when calculating combinations that involve several tactical themes.)

De la Maza's plan is tactics-heavy...that's why I like Heisman's plan better. It's more comprehensive and user-friendly.

ScottieK

[TimM]

[ QUOTE ]
Try the advice in this two-part article from chess cafe. It's not sexy, but it will improve your game tremendously. Even if you think it won't.

http://www.chesscafe.com/text/skittles148.pdf
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/skittles150.pdf

[/ QUOTE ]

I skimmed both of these, and it is good advice.

But you also have to play. Perhaps the author just assumes the reader will be a club player and plays rated games regularly. But if you are not, this part is important too. It's best to join a club with rated tournaments or play a lot of weekend events. It's important that the games be rated, and have a fairly slow time control, one where you record all the moves. Once the game is over you can analyze your play at home, maybe with the help of a computer program, or better yet, with your opponent just after the game. Sometimes stronger players will get involved in the post game analysis too - listen to them. This is better than the computer analysis because a computer can't really tell you why it chooses certain moves or what it's plan is, other than in a rudimentary way.

[daveymck]

I m looking at it again and winboard seems to be the way to go, you then can load up multiple engines which have been rated on various sites to give you a game at the level you want.

A google on winboard will et you up and running.