It seems that the chess world is as full of diverse and contradictory opinion as is any other arena of endeavor. So different are we human beings, and so adept at being contentious can we be, that this is not a surprising observation. However unremarkable it may be, the array of differences of opinion about how best to learn chess surely vexes me. It seems to me that there are as many views of how best to study chess as there are opening variations. And because of this I find myself frustrated and rather "stuck."
Some sources (by this I mean various learning media, the writings of prominent chess players and trainers, and my own conversations and e-mail exchanges with same) seem to emphasize the playing and studying (annotation being one suggested method) of one's own games as the preferred way to improve. Ideally, the player will have access to a much stronger player who can help identify strengths and problems and help to correct problems. Others suggest additionally that a chess engine can be of immense value to help a player improve, but I am not at all sure what specifically this means.
Other sources seem to suggest that one can substantially enhance progress in chess by a combination of playing, studying, viewing chess DVDs, and by having private lessons. Obviously, the variety of approaches seems desirable, and I myself have followed this kind of regimen, but there is a limit to available time and financial resources. I have noted before that I have plenty of chess-related resources to look at, more than I need for the rest of my natural life. At least, in this area of learning, I've never read or heard anyone say that you can play better chess by study alone, with no playing. :)
I've heard and read opinions about the most important parts of the game to study, too. Some people are convinced that the endgame is the most important part of chess to know because you will improve opening and middlegame play by improving here. Others say that tactics are the most important thing, because such a high percentage of games (especially among club players) are decided by tactics. Others say that tactics "flow from a positionally superior game" (I forget who wrote this, but I recall it verbatim) implying, I guess, that positional factors matter a great deal, too. Most stronger players seem to discourage weaker players from looking too closely at opening theory, by my own recent play suggests that I need to know at least SOME and to be able to retain the theory.
I have had several different people suggest ideas about learning openings, at least to a point of some familiarity and reasonable competence. I've read everything from replaying theory over and over to trying to play countless blitz games online using openings one is learning. There seems to be a camp that tries to dissuade people from learning variations and to learn instead opening principles and ideas. Yet, as we all know, one may follow all the good principles and ideas and get killed by an atypical move, novelty or tactical shot.
I invite readers to weigh in on this general topic of "opinions" and on any of the specifics that come to mind.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
I believe that first one must study the rules of chess so that you can move the pieces in a regular way.
Follow this up with endgame and tactical motifs (pin, skewer, double attack, rontgen, magnet, ...). Endgames have not so many pieces on the board, so easy to help you learn how to calculate. Tactics do the same but gives you ideas for opening and middlegame. It also brings you some notice of active chess (which I miss by playing to positional for many years).
Once you learned all of the above its time to learn how to break the rules.
That is my take on chess study.
The best compilation of chess "advice" I've seen is on Temposchluker's blog:
http://temposchlucker.blogspot.com/2011/11/scenarios.html
My own observations are:
1. Analyze and annotate your own games. Everyone seems to agree on this (and more to the point, master and GM level players all seem to actually have done it). Exactly how you do this is more or less up to you. I posted on my own blog about it, but essentially I use chess engines to show me the different options (especially ones that I missed), rather than blindly following their judgments.
2. Study all phases of the game, with the most attention paid to your weaknesses (which should be obvious from having analyzed your own games). Both strategy/positional factors and tactics are important. If you consistently drop material etc. during games, tactics are probably more important (though not 100% so) than strategy.
3. Play enough serious training and/or tournament games to give you enough grist for #1 above.
chesstiger: Your comments never fail to brighten my day!
ChessAdmin: The steps you identify place a lot of value on one's own games (a point with which I agree). I am wondering at what time control one's own games stop being useful (for example, when I log in at Playchess.com I see many players wanting to play 1 minute games - even 0 min + 1 sec games, which I don't see as valuable for me). G/30? Game/15? Thoughts?
The general consensus seems to be that a true "slow" game needs to be around G/60+5s (60 5) or 45 45 (which averages out to the same thing, usually). I'm more partial to the 45 45 games these days, since they allow for some thought in the endgame with the larger increment.
The problem with the faster time control games isn't that they aren't valuable in their own way (although there's sometimes a debate about that), it's that they don't provide sufficient think time for improving players to work on systematically developing their thought process and strategic and tactical understanding during the games. This is generally supported by the observation that very good slow players are usually very good fast players, but the reverse is true less often.
ChessAdmin: Thank you so much for this feedback! I've written before that time increments work for me very well and I can see the value of having this 45+45 control in effect. Your point about having at least a little time for thought during an endgame is excellent. The challenge now is finding someone who wants to play at that time control.
I'll play with you!
apollo17: I'm around all weekend, so please send me a text sometime so we can plan this. 45 minutes + 45 seconds sounds like it is tailor-made for the two of us!
Post a Comment