+100
Reassembler had a great article a couple days ago, and covered (in depth) some of the stuff that I wanted to mention (in shallow). You may also appreciate his better manipulation of the English language.
There’s a bunch of chess bloggers calling themselves the Knights Errant who do these “Seven Circle” exercises as espoused by one Michael de la Maza (pdf). De la Maza improved from class D to Expert in a bit over a year (then wrote a book and disappeared from tournament play completely…) Apparently, the Seven Circles requires a dedication of time that for most adults would cause them to neglect kids, fail to consume basic nutrition, and/or lose their jobs. Attempts to get the government to classify de la Maza’s followers as a cult have so far proved unsuccessful.
Originally, I wanted to explore whether the Seven Circle improves people’s chess skill faster than other methods. But if there’s a way to determine that, one thing’s for sure: I’m too lazy to find out. (Hopefully it doesn’t, not because I want the Knights Errant to fail, but I want to feel better about being too lazy to take on such a rigorous routine. That way I can say to myself, “Well, look at those other guys, and this program doesn’t seem to work for them.”)
In 2008, I’d like to gain 100 rating points, so I’m slapping together a non-stringent, non-specific program that I won’t follow after a month, so will likely end up in disappointment. On the plus side, other players who’ve played me seem to think the 100 points are possible (based on statements like “If you bothered learning any openings, you might actually be decent.” Well, it was put more diplomatically, but that’s what the guy meant.). It will take some effort to get that improvement, including the actually learning openings part. *blanches*
So here is my 5-part plan:
- Tactics. Do chesstempo.com occasionally. That way, I can pretend I’m doing as much as the Knights Errant to improve my tactics.
- Play over master games. Reshevsky’s “The Art of Positional Play” will work. Dinosaur notation, w00t! (1. P-K4 P-QB4…)
- Actually play.
- Learn an opening for each color. *blanches* They* say the concepts of the King’s Indian Attack are easy to learn, so I’ll start with that one (plus I kinda started before stopping tournament play in March). But they say it’s not powerful at higher levels. *blanches* And maybe Basman’s Defense (1. … g5) for Black…
- Exercise. Gotta increase endurance for long games. And who knows, maybe I’ll be able to almost-dunk on a 9 1/2 foot rim again.
I like the establishment of a reasonable goal alongside an assurance that you aren’t actually going to work for it
The KIA stuff is perfectly effective under the 2200 level.
FYI I just switched to algebraic notation THIS YEAR.
Comment by Derek Slater | 4 October 2007
http://chess.emrald.net/ctsActTact.php?Rows=100 i simply cannot recommend this enough. more than chess tempo. the combination of timed shorter term tactics (CTS) with longer, deeper efforts at calculation (CT-Art 3.0) is the best way. after that: endings. where is study of GM games in your plan?
Comment by David K, Seattle | 4 October 2007
BTW: no opening study should be done unless you are 1800+, otherwise this is much misapplied energy, and great far ‘increasing returns’ on tactical study. chess tempo is not big enough.
Comment by David K, Seattle | 4 October 2007
Opening study can be useful somewhat but you really need to learn the ideas involved not just the variations. “The ideas behind the chess openings” is really good for that. (besides learning the ideas makes it a lot easier to memorize the variations anyways.) is that guy these knights errant are emulating the same guy as the writer of “Rapid chess improvement”? as i recall that guy(I think thats the guy anyway.) basicly focused on just tactics, jeremy silman had a very low opinion of him in a book review, and the book seems like one of those promise you the moon for free sales pitches, but i might be thinking of the wrong guy or book.
in endings i think one of the most useful lessons is one in “my system” about how to create a passed pawn, if you have read it you can answer this question: if you’ve got a 3 pawn phalanx on there original squares on the q-side against a 2 pawn phalanx on there original squares, which pawn should you advance first to create a passed pawn? if you don’t know automatically you should check out the short lesson in “my system” its helped me loads of times.
answer: .”nwap dessap etadidnac” eht ro ,ti fo daeha yltcerid nwap on sah taht nwap ehT
Comment by l3rucewayne | 4 October 2007
@Derek: I would die happy to hit Expert level, so the KIA it is. Or will be, based on David’s advice. This year, I met for the first time someone who never learned dinosaur notation. I’m surprised you went so long before switching.
@David: Thank you for giving me a reason to avoid studying openings! *bows low in gratitude* I’ll switch to that other tactics site on your recommendation.
@l3rucewayne: Once (if) I hit 1800, I’ll have to get that book.
You’re thinking of the right guy (de la Maza), and I found the article where Silman was not terribly complimentary of him. The point about de la Maza suddenly quitting tournament chess was interesting. If you look at his last two supplements, they are the same (2041), the implication being he finally hit a plateau and quit. Or, he just got bored with chess.
Based on everything I’ve read, my conclusion is this: de la Maza’s method will get one to a certain level depending on your natural talent…maybe 1600, 1800, or 2000. After that, it’s time to start getting serious about learning positional concepts to improve. And in reality, basic positional concepts should be at least introduced, even while focusing on tactics.
De la Maza is a cool last name, in any case.
Comment by Donnie | 4 October 2007
de la Maza is a slightly odd ducky. There’s a lengthy discussion with him in H Goldowsky’s book Engaging Pieces. (Yes, I have met both MDLM and Howard.) He quit because he felt his method had taken him as far as it could, plus he got a full-time job again and couldnt’ spent 8 hour days at the board any more.
re: notation, I am a creature of habit and it also turned into a running joke, that young players would no longer be able to decode my scoresheets. This year I changed solely because I think you have to be willing to blow up everything about your game if you’re going to improve at an advanced age.
Comment by Derek Slater | 4 October 2007
For good reasons to prefer tempo over emerald for tactics server, see zenchess. It has two modes, which is nice: fast (like CTS, which tests how much you already know and helps you stay sharp), and slow (to actually think).
Comment by Blue Devil Knight | 5 October 2007
@Derek: Slightly odd may be par for the course for chess players. Of course, if he’s slightly odd for a chess player, then that has extra meaning.
As far as notation’s concerned, I love playing someone who writes their moves down first, then thinks about it. Gives me an idea what they’re looking for. Except when they use foreign languages, although I’ve gotten the Spanish down; eg Cb6 = Nb6 (Caballero = Knight)
@BDK: Maybe I’ll just switch back and forth between the two. Probably as long as you practice consistently, it’s hard to not improve.
Comment by Donnie | 5 October 2007
Its not a cult? Damn…. I wasted all this time and shunned my family for nothing?
Comment by Blunderprone | 7 October 2007
Oh - just for the record, I don’t write before moving. I think that’s an absurd habit. Scoresheet’s for recording the moves as played in the game, not for improving your play.
Comment by Derek Slater | 7 October 2007
@Blunderprone: Oh, you’re part of a cult. It’s just that the government’s a bit slow in recognizing it.
@Derek: Absolutely. But if people want to broadcast their thinking ahead of time, I’ll take advantage!
Comment by Donnie | 9 October 2007