Improving my chess game

Get yourself ICC (http://www.chessclub.com/), and just do trainingbot over and over. Play in leagues such as the 45/45 team league, sunday slow tournaments etc. Simuls against international and grandmaster players almost every day.

There's plenty of opportunitys for slow games and lots of tools for improvement. Also for some amusing poker discussion join channel 41 and listen to those guys talk about poker. It's interesting to see fish talk strategy.

[ 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.

[Skipbidder]

Learn endgames. It doesn't help you to win a pawn with your superior middlegame play and then not be able to convert the win.

Grab a book on tactics and leave it in the bathroom.

Don't get too hung up on openings.

Play lots of chess.

[ 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