My study plan: what do you think of it?

[andreacoda]

In the hope this is not too off-topic for this forum, I would like to share my training plan with you, and get your feedback.

My general objective is to improve my game in long time control tournaments (with the dream of getting to Candidate Master level, but I would be already happy with much less than this).

Background: I started playing chess many years ago, I then stopped for many years, and I very recently restarted. I am 37 years old, and I do not have an exceptional amount of time to dedicate to chess: realistically, I would say no more than 1 to 1.5 hour per day as average. My current level is between 1300 and 1400 ELO, and my main defect is that I blunder too much and too often.

My current study plan is the following:

OPENING:
At my current level and given the limited time I have available, I don’t believe that I should invest huge amount of times on openings. I am using the Torre Attack when playing White, and the Scandinavian Defense when playing Back against 1.e4. I believe they both lead to solid positions, very good for me. I have one book per opening, and I regularly study the games there and the main lines and variations.

TACTICS:
This is where I am currently investing most of my time, because I think that, at my level, most games turn around tactics. I do about 30/45 minutes a day of Chessimo (www.chessimo.com, something very similar to ChessTempo, but with more of a didactic twist), then another 15/30 minutes with ChessTempo, which I use to “track my progress”. I also review (using Fritz) all my online games, to find tactics my opponent or I have missed.

STRATEGY:
Here, again, I am not spending too much time with theory. I know the basics and general concepts, and the only study I do is going through annotated games of strong players and read the comments, trying to understand the why of each move from a strategic perspective. I have several books for this, all very nice and well written.

ENDINGS:
Here I have a pretty pragmatic approach. I use the endings module of Chessimo, which is based on “learn by doing and repetition”, I read about the key concepts, and I practice by taking some random positions from ChessTempo (the ones non ending up in mate), and playing them until the mate (one thing I have to learn is how to win a won game – if this makes any sense to you).

GAMES:
Finally, I try to play as much as I can, because of course you can study and practice as much as you want, but playing remains the key thing – and it’s also where the most fun is! :-)
I play online with three cadences: 5/5 (to practice openings and replies to them), 15/0 and 45/15 (to get closer to tournament time).
Whenever possible, I try and play regular OTB, because I realize that there is a huge difference between playing on screen and over the board.

That’s basically it. I would really appreciate your comments about this plan, so that I can tune and improve it.

Thanks in advance,

Andrea

[newlook]

I'm not sure whether blitz games help or hurt play in standard time. Maybe it depends on the person. For me, I have to work on slowing down anyway, so blitz would make a bad habit worse. I've also heard that blitz orients you toward the obvious.

If the main reason is not enough time to play standard games, you might try online correspondence chess. Some people have dozens or even hundreds of simultaneous CC games, but they can still take time to think about each move. (Well, maybe not with hundreds of games. Those people are crazy! )

The rest of your program sounds great, though I'm certainly not an authority. I pretty much do three things: play games, analyze them with a computer, and Chess Tempo. Also, Game Explorer is a nice way to look at openings without doing serious study.

[andreacoda]

Many thanks for your reply, Newlook.

>you might try online correspondence chess.

I am doing correspondence chess, basically to work on the openings. The issue I find with that kind of game, though, is that today virtually everyone is using computer assistance, which in practice means you are playing against a computer. It is good to investigate the lines, but then the interest more or less ends up there, at least for me. Also, the kind of game is basically very different from OTB games, where it is much easier to blunder because of lack of concentration.

Thanks,
 
Andrea

[drahacikfm]

I tried out www.chessimo.com .  It looks very good.  I decided to buy the program so that my son (bubak) and I can study endgames.  It has 1440 endgame exercises and about 200 commented endgames.  The comments could be written better, and many winning moves are not marked as alternates as they are here, but it's still the best way to learn endgames that I have seen so far.

The tactics training here on Chess Tempo is of course much better than the tactics on Chessimo, so we will continue to train our tactics here.  When Richard does the endgame problems here that he is planning, then we won't need anything else 

One thing that is nice about Chessimo is that when you solve a problem, the bell rings.  It's a nice reinforcement.  Maybe Richard can add a bell here that rings when you play the last move of the solution, optional in the Preferences.

[texian]

andrea, you've got a well formulated study plan .. i'm working in a similar direction with no specific goal other than steady improvement at the moment .. it seems you've effecitively covered all the bases with your plan which may serve as a model for me as i get further along

i am playing competively at FICS at about 1200-1300 in mostly unrated games at 30/0 and 40/0 .. i really need the time for making move selections and frequently get in time trouble even within those limits .. while i love the idea of playing blitz games, i found them completely unrewarding in re-learning the basics .. having been away from chess for 30+ years, i'm currently focusung primarily on tactics training here and at CTS with Crafty/Fritz analysis of all my games

my immediate goal is simply avoiding early blunders during play .. i've seen noticable improvement in that regard .. i've also begun using CT (standard only) to begin learning to look ahead a few moves, an underdeveloped skill when using CTS, play, and analysis alone .. i see little reason for me to pursue  other avenues of study until i can confidently begin seeing the immediate situation from move to move and avoid really foolish blunders

for openings, i am using the Ruy Lopez exclusively, but i haven't developed it beyond a few moves .. when playing black, i haven't settled on any particular opening yet

good luck with your quest and thanks for sharing your study plan .. it provides a useful and necessary framework for the road ahead

[newlook]

The issue I find with that kind of game, though, is that today virtually everyone is using computer assistance, which in practice means you are playing against a computer.

I don't think it's a huge problem. If someone is consistently using a computer, their rating will be the computer's rating — above 2500 these days. I play people of my own level, and my Chess.com rating fluctuates around the mid-1700s, so I am unlikely to meet hard core cheaters. If someone uses a computer only occasionally to cheat, and their combined computer-human play is in the 1700s, that's all that matters to me.

Besides, the errors I see would never have gotten past a computer. Even more so for the people I've played with lower ratings. Ratings really are a self-correcting mechanism that will match you with the level of game play you want. Without any titles or prizes on the line, the source of that game play is of little concern to me.

[andreacoda]

Thanks all for reading and sharing!

For Texian: many thanks for posting and for the kind words, you are really very nice!

For Newlook: you have a good point there. I actually just restarted playing at www.iecg.org: absolutely free, nice site, and now you can play via a server, rather than via e-mail, with very nice options for time control (from the canonical 40 days for 10 moves to the rapid 20 days + 2 days per move and 10 days + 1 day per move fischer.

For Draha: glad to hear you liked Chessimo. No comments on my plan though? 

PS: September 12th I will start an online 10 weeks "advanced" course on tactics - hopefully that will help as well!

I will keep you posted!

Bye for now,

Andrea

[drahacikfm]

For Draha: glad to hear you liked Chessimo. No comments on my plan though? 

I didn't comment on your plan because it's better than mine!    I just kind of do what I feel like each day, and I need better structure to my chess study 

My only comment is forget the 5 5.  You don't have enough time to calculate tactics.  At least 10 5 or longer.  My son (bubak here) is Slovak Champion for 10 years and under, and he is not allowed to play any blitz.  30 0 is the shortest game he is allowed to play online!  I don't think he's played more than 5 games of blitz in his life.

[texian]

My son (bubak here) is Slovak Champion for 10 years and under, and he is not allowed to play any blitz.  30 0 is the shortest game he is allowed to play online!  I don't think he's played more than 5 games of blitz in his life.

i've imposed the same rule on myself, drahacik .. i suspect if it's good advice for a 10 year old, it is better advice for a 62 year old .. in fact, i prefer 40 0 or longer and frequently play 3 game sets with the same friend from Dublin who has the patience to see my clock tick down to less than 10 minutes or even run out when he still has 20-30 minutes remaining

my study plan, while slowly evolving, strongly resembles yours - "I just kind of do what I feel like each day" .. however, i suspect such an approach is more focused and works much better at your level of play than mine down here in the Elo basement .. regardless, when work is play it is worth it and playing chess does require a degree of work

andrea, thanks for the nice compliment .. when i stopped doing problems earlier today, i re-visited a site where i first understood i needed a study plan .. mine is still very much unformulated, but it is based on something .. i'll share a little of its crude origins here (remember, i just started chess again about a month ago after 30+ years away)

at Susan Polgar's Chess Discussions Forum is a very interesting post with terrific replies from a young man on a similar quest to yours, andrea .. you and others may enjoy it - see Tactics they say .. you may also enjoy Am I too old to get better at chess? the last comment in that thread is mine, aka pops .. it was about two weeks ago i first read and responded to that thread and commited to a serious tactics training regime inspired in part by Michael de la Maza’s two part Chesscafe.com article 400 Points in 400 Days (Part I, Part II)

while i don't completely agree with de la Maza's approach, i think it is a good place to start for those of us, like me, in the Class D basement (1200-1399) and below with aspirations of reaching Class A level (1800-1999) where maybe there is a room with a window, a view, and a nice antique Staunton board and weighted pieces

btw, de la Maza's article led to a 2002 book Rapid Chess Development and an 1800 rating before he "retired" .. while i don't recommend de la Maza's book, his article is well worth the read .. i base that on having found a scathing review of de la Maza's book written by Jeremy Silman, a well known chess author and FIDE IM .. here is a brief quote from Silman's review:

A study regimen MUST be created for the individual in question. And due to this truth, I can (VERY reservedly!) recommend de la Maza’s book to those that are falling apart tactically AND who are willing to work like dogs to eradicate the problem (and those hard working individuals will quite likely experience chess improvement of some kind). For those that need a cheerleader/drill sergeant/motivational speaker to get them started, de la Maza is there to lead you to the Promised Land of robotic tactical acumen. But if your main problem lies elsewhere, or if you have limited time to devote to chess study (translation: if you have a life), then other books, (real) teachers, ideas, etc. need to be made use of.

while i am quite willing to work like a dog, while the work is play, i.e. enjoyable, and i love using the analysis engines like Crafty and Fritz, all brand new to me, i like what Silman is saying .. he continues:

I get hundreds of letters from students worldwide that gain hundreds of points in a few months from reading my “strategically oriented” books. Others don’t improve drastically in tournament play, but simply enjoy the game more because they can suddenly understand ideas utilized by the chess greats. This is a VERY important point (I’m not pushing my books, I’m trying to make a point!): they enjoy the game more because, instead of looking for tricks while not having a clue about what’s happening on a broader scale, they are taught that chess has many hidden depths that ARE accessible to them with proper training.

while Silman may be closer to pushing his book than he might suspect, i really like his perspective, respect his opinion, and have three of his books on my Amazon wish list .. i had a glimpse of the game Silman describes during the 20 years i played at learning chess many, many years ago .. that is the room with a view and a board i'm hoping to find, perhaps for the first time - i never studied this hard when i was a kid and certainly didn't have the resources we have available today

sorry for the ramble, it is past happy hour here 

[newlook]

I read the de la Maza articles a few years ago. The rationale — pattern recognition — makes sense and is commonly accepted. His particular Seven Circles program seems masochistic and, as far as I know, implies knowledge about dose-response that doesn't exist. So yeah, tactics is one of the most important things to study, and find-the-best-move problems are the most convenient way to practice tactics. But I see no reason to believe that working your way up to 1,000 problems in a single day is the Holy Grail of chess improvement. More is better to some undefined, probably idiosyncratic, extent, and there are probably diminishing returns. So as long as it's fun and not work, do tactics exercises. If it feels like work, it's probably good to back off and pursue what you enjoy, in chess and beyond.

[the fly]

Hello Andrea,
some ideas to your study plan.

First of all it is good to have a study plan. I guess most chess players, even very good ones, have none. They just study what they like at the moment.

Tactics is the most important thing to study in your playing strength. I think that is consens here.

Openings are not so important. Try to play tactical openings untill you are stronger. I might be wrong, but in my opinion 1.e4 is mandatory for players under 1600.

I think endgames are quite important too.

Playing blitz is for fun...

You forgot to mention the study of classical, well commented, games. Chess is not only about positions but also about long term ideas you can only learn by studying games. And  you will learn something about all the other aspects of the game (opening, tactics, strategy, engame...) through games.

Another important point is learning by analysing and playing with other people. Social learning is often the best.  In my experience you learn best from people who are 100-300 rating points better then yourself or from a good trainer.

[andreacoda]

Quite a bunch of new comments up there – many thanks to all of you, guys!

Drahacik: point taken, blitz games dropped from my daily routine (just to say how much I value your input!)

Texian: those are some amazing links, I had a quick look and they absolutely deserve some attention! I will investigate in the coming days!

Newlook: I heard about this “Seven Circles” plan, but I did not know it was from La Maza. I am not sure I am prepared for something like that, I can afford improving at a slower pace :-)

The fly: thanks for your comments. I am avoiding 1.e4 because it leaves the game to much open for Black, including lines which I think require a lot of theoretical knowledge (take, as an example, the Sicilian). I am absolutely studying “the classical” – the games I mentioned in my “Strategy” section are exactly the ones you are referring to.

Thanks all again,
 
Andrea

[allest]

Hello, how is everybody doing?

I noticed in your strategy section, you stated you werent going to spend too much time on this.  I think this is a big mistake.  The theory, or opening theory, behind strategy would probably not help much, but overall strategy is always helpful.  One thing I think people always underestimate is how much poor strategy can lead to blunders.  It is much easier to blunder in a bad position than it is too blunder in a good position.  Also, strategy and tactics are inherently interrelated; you really cant seperate the two.  If you have good strategy, you more likely than not will give your opponent a lot less tactical oppurtunties and hence you will blunder a lot less.  One obvious problem, though, is how do you study strategy when, no offence because this applies to basically all of us, you have no idea what is going on in a chess game?

Well, what I have found works best for me is to go over grandmaster games, like a book of Alekhine's collected games, or Rubinstein's or Tal's or Kasparov's.  Dont worry if you dont get everything, also, as you will pick it up intuititvely even if consciously you have no idea what is going on in a game.  You will also pick up on the player's style, which will make the element of strategy less abstract and easier to digest.  If you see a 'Tal' move on the board, this labeling will help your overall understanding.  You will remember what Tal would do in these types of situations and what possible plans and ideas you could do.

This type of 'overall' studying of chess can be very helpful, though studying endgames/tactics etc. by themselves is also helpful.  You will pick up a little bit of everything, and should be able to approach new problems over the board with much more confidence.  I beleive it was Fischer or somebody who said if you want to be a master, study 100 games from each of the World Champions and you cant help but become a master.  Probably, no one has done this so regimentally, but the idea is basically sound.

The 3 prongs of attack for chess improvement that I have generally heard, are study master games, play people who are masters (or better than you), and analyze your own games.

Also, it is important to remember that if you blunder away your queen in a game, you should still analyze the rest of the game.  Maybe you blundered your queen because you were already in a bad position, or you were worried about something else.  Analyzing what happens before blunders, as opposed to just saying I was doing fine until I blundered, can often help eliminate you even getting into situations where these blunders happen.

Good Luck and I hope some of this is helpful!

[newlook]

Well, what I have found works best for me is to go over grandmaster games, like a book of Alekhine's collected games, or Rubinstein's or Tal's or Kasparov's.

A classic chess book by Irving Chernev is Logical Chess: Move by Move. It has only 33 GM games, but Chernev comments on every move, at a level that novices and intermediate players can understand.

[andreacoda]

Allest - thanks a ton for your comments, really helpful. especially the one on analyzing pre-post blunders: I must admit that is something I tend to do, and your comment is spot on!

Newlook: I have that one, I agree with you, it is really good!