Road Map to Chess Improvement

[boorchess]

Hello Brothers and Sisters,

I am re posting some articles that I wrote from Chess.com basically an outline of my own study curriculum that helped me break 2000 as well as observations I have made of the different levels in chess.

I am FIDE Master and full time trainer. More info here www.OhioChessAcademy.com

http://www.chess.com/article/view/0---2000-a-roadmap-of-chess-knowledge

First I must make a disclaimer. The following list is based on nearly thirty years of playing and grinding my way up through the ranks as well as coaching chess to players in these ranks for nearly twenty years. The list is still highly subjective; in chess one size does not fit all. Chess players develop at different rates and usually jump past one of these rating categories and learn some of the skills at different times in their progression. For example I recently showed a basic triangulation ending to a young near GM level player and he did not know it while there are many players in the 1800-2100 range who are well versed in endgame theory.

In the end the true measure of practical ability it is not  knowledge as much as it is your ability to solve and create problems over the board. But, the more you know the easier it is to solve and create those problems for your opponent.

An important note to keep in mind, I make a distinction between knowledge, competence and mastery of a skill or concept.

The Knowledge of Chess Players by rank.

0-500

The Rules of the game.

The Values of the pieces.

How to checkmate with two rooks, A Queen and a Rook.

Basic understanding of the principals of opening play (Center, Develop, Castle)

500-1000

Queen and King, King and Rook checkmate within 25 Moves (Ending).

How to meet the four move checkmate.(Opening)

Knowledge of all the one move tactics (Fork, Pin, Skewer.)

How to draw with a lone King vs. a King and pawn. (Ending)

The 3 vs. 3 pawn breakthrough (Ending/Tactics)

The terms for “bad” pawns (isolated, doubled and backward pawns)

Can solve mate in ones with competence (at or above 60%)

Drops pieces less often (once every 20 moves) but still falls for checkmates in one move.

 

1000-1200

Knowledge of all the drawn basic endings without pawns (R vs B, R vs N) AND the strategy or ideal placement of the pieces (not perfection, but awareness of the basic defensive concepts). (Ending)

Ability to win with Queen and King  vs lone minor piece and a King.(Ending)

Knowledge of opposition and how it relates to basic king and pawn endings.

Square of the Pawn.(Ending)

Knowledge of the various KP rook pawn draws.(Ending)

Ability to checkmate with 2 bishops vs king within 50 moves.(Ending)

Can solve simple checkmate in 2s with competence (a 60% score on chesstempo)

Is familiar with at least one classic game, such as the Opera House game. Should memorize.(Culture)

Can demonstrate a number of opening traps such as Fried Liver Attack, Legals Mate, and various pin traps. (Openings/Tactics)

Can score a respectable %50 on basic chess tactics on tactics trainer.(Tactics)

Is aware of the names of many openings and the first 3-5 moves of play.

Can tell you when it is not safe to 0-0-0 in a given position.(Strategy)

Can beat a chess master with queen odds. (!? I am not sure about this one as the level of chess masters varies greatly as well as the confidence level of novice players)

1200-1399

Further knowledge of king and pawn endings, Trebuchet, Jettison and basic Triangulation skills.

“Two pawns on the 6th beat a rook”

Knight or Bishop vs pawn positions

Attacking ability has improved. Can demonstrate the classic bishop sacrifice. Smothering mate combinations. (See the Art of the Checkmate or How to Beat Your Dad at Chess)

Has scored miniature games with tactical knockouts.

Can now solve mate 3s and higher with competence (%60 on chesstempo)

Understands the positional terms: Outpost, Pawn Chain, Pawn Break.

Has an appreciation for how a Bishop dominates a Knight in many endings.

Has an appreciation for how a Knight can dominate a Bishop in the same

With work, can solve basic endgame studies 3-5 moves in length, ditto on “easy” mate  #2 compositions (Polgar book).

Can show you basic middlegame plans in Open, Closed, and Semi Open Structures.

Knowledge of classic and modern examples has grown manifold;  to the point where some of their games are attempts at emulation of master chess or at least they are thinking about the principals during their games as well as positional factors.(Culture,Strategy)

 

1400-1600

Knowledge of Rook and Pawn endings, Lucena and Philidor

Importance of activity in rook and pawn endings, “Rook belongs behind pawn”.

A budding appreciation of the initiative in the middlegame and endgame.

Quickly spots basic tactics and rarely drops pieces.

Has opening rep somewhat nailed down (this varies wildly from player to player) and may have developed some “theories” of opening play himself.

Has started to specialize in some area of chess, an area where they may be playing at a much higher level than the others (endings, openings, tactics, psychology).

Has selected a favorite player or book and has studied it in earnest. Can perhaps quote sections, concepts or entire games from said book.

Further knowledge of opening traps/attack schemes  such as Domiano’s gambit and the Double Bishop sacrifice (Openings/Tactics).

Understands  the race to connect the rooks vs. the value of a pawn (Opening).

Understands the term prophylaxis and has a budding appreciation for the term (Strategy).

1600-1800

Knowledge of Minor piece endings.

Knowledge of the rules for Queen vs Pawn races (Endgame).

Has growing knowledge of Rook vs Pawn endings (rook pawn draws, Capablanca- Yates)

Can checkmate with KQ, or KR blindfolded (Endgame/Cognitive Skills).

Can play most openings and into middle game blindfolded (16-25 moves)

In games has a deeper appreciation for how to play against the king and attack in general. They have put in time understanding the tempo of attack and in their games they can actively play for the initiative.

Knows of or has memorized games from some of the world champions. Usually limited to an awareness, but can see the moves in their head and have a conversation about the classic games. (Culture/Cognitive Skills)

Has a definite style and preference for types of middle games in chess (Psychology).

Openings continue to build based on the experience of actual tournament encounters.

Is ready to begin mastering KQ vs KR (Ending).

On occasion can beat a chess master with knight odds or even pawn odds.

Can save games against weaker players when down a piece by using endgame knowledge.

 

 

1800-2000

Has mastered basic to intermediate king and pawn endings. Coordinating squares, triangulation etc.

Opposite colored bishops dynamics are well in hand (Endgame)

Further knowledge of bishop vs. knight and a growing prowess for using the two bishops. (Endgame/Positional)

Has now read classic texts such as My System and can implement big strategic ideas in their games such as Blockade, Pawn Storms, the d5 break in the Isolated Queen Pawn, h4-h5 in the Dragon, Sicilian Exchange Sacrifices (Strategy,Positional,Culture,Cognitive).

With effort can play an entire game blindfolded or “read” a game from a book. (Cognitive skills)

They understand what it means to truly complicate a position and attempt to induce chaos when worse or losing. (Strategy)

They have developed a tactical “flair” and seek to create their own ideal of beauty on the chess board (Tactics/Strategy).

Has read entire books on tactics and can easily and quickly solve all types of tactical puzzles with competence. (60%-75%).

Knows how to sterilize a game and “play for a draw”. (Strategy)

Can beat a chess master with pawn odds (some of the time).

In some areas their opening knowledge will be equal to a master, knowledge of a few lines deep, past move 12-15 and understanding of the middle game plans.

Continued education of classic games.

A growing appreciation for long term compensation and how to combine intuitive and analytical chess thinking. (Strategy/Psychology)

Is actively using prophylaxis in games and trying to stop the other players plan.

Usually has put in time annotating their own games and thinking about their own process.

And the list goes on...

Again this list is subjective, but I can say with confidence that accomplishing most of these points will bring you the expert level in understanding. I am still somewhat new to Chess Tempo in terms of performance ratings. It will be interesting to learn more of the actual tactical acumen of otb ratings vs. standard tactics. For myself I have been over 2300 and occasionally breaking 2400 for the past ten years, yet my tactics standard rating is hovering around 1800! (2/8/2014) Already some of my students have surpassed my tactical solving rating and I think the reason is clear; they are working harder than me in this area!

I look forward to reading your thoughts about about the process of chess improvement.

Coach Carl

[munich]

For myself I have been over 2300 and occasionally breaking 2400 for the past ten years, yet my tactics standard rating is hovering around 1800! (2/8/2014)

To increase your standard rating you only need to take more time. The more time you use, the better your accuracy.
There is a better gauge to measure what tactics you can do in relation to time used:
It is called "Blitz mode". The average solving time is hardly "blitz speed", and when you reach puzzle a bit above average club level, the average solving time will most likely be more than 30 seconds, often reaching more than 1 minute.
Blitz mode is simply a mode with a clock (taking solving time into account, too). You set it in your preferences somewhere. (Blitz rating has its flaws, too, but they are less "out of sync" than standard. Currently best is the measure called "fide estimate" (and even this has its flaws, too), but that is only given to gold members and there is no published rating list).

I like your classification of various playing levels.

[upandcomer]

I thought you're study list and necessary skills were interesting, but a little endgame heavy. Your 1800-2000 seems very accurate.

I've compiled my own list of things I think one needs, and should do to get over 2000 OTB rating. If you'd like I could list the books on chess I've gone over too in a different post.

To get over 2000 rating:

1. accomplish tactics at a 2000+ level. To do this read over a number of tactical books multiple times, and devote somewhere between 30 mins to 2 hours a day doing tactical problems for atleast a year.

2. Learn how to maximize your pieces positions and restrict your opponents piece positions. Learn how to make pieces good and bad. Various intermediate level positional books will teach you this.

3. Learn a decent amount about endgame. Silman's Complete Endgame Course should give you enough knowledge to accomplish this.

4. Learn the pawn structure plans of basic opening positions. There are a lot of pawn structures and learning the plans with illustrative master games will let you understand them with work.

5. After having learned the pawn structure plans of various openings, find critical opening books for your prefered opening lines and learn how to play them. If you understand pawn structures you wont need them as much, but it helps to play the game faster if you have lines memorized, rather than spending an hour a game calculating out the opening. Chesspub.com is a good place to look at high level discussion of opening books, and maybe even here you will get good recommendations on the best opening books.

6. Study classical master games and try to predict each of their moves and understand their game plans. Knowing what you do about the pawn structures, tactics, piece positioning, and endgame you should be able to understand the majority of their moves even if you cant predict them. I dont think you can ever study too many master games.

7. Finally if you still want to continue improving look for grandmasters analyzing their own games or other grandmasters games. This will show you the thinking style of top grandmasters and how they incorporate all their knowledge into trying to win a game. The videos on chess.com I found were good for this and allowed me to gain a vastly better way of thinking about things than I had before.

 

Well anyways if someone does all of these seriously to the point they truly understand them and they should be atleast expert level. I've done the majority of these things and I've beaten 2090 players in tournaments and been steadily climbing my rating up 40+ points per tournament (Im 2035 right now). I don't think I'm quite master strength, I need to just slightly improve in everything Ive listed to get there, and definitely need to study more master games.

[boorchess]

Thanks Munich,

I agree. One can not blitz the standard rating and expect to have big results. It is very useful to compare average solving time to what time you are taking to solve the positions.

I actually relish the idea of deliberate practice with a focus on understanding using the tactics by rating level. Start in the 0-1000 zones, 1000-1100, 1100-1200 and so on. It is a bit tricky to narrow the sets down the sets to what I feel is the ideal amount (100 positions). I have created three so far and found that my understanding is not perfect at the 1200-1300 zones. When I say perfect I do mean that, 100% with instant recall by understanding.

Basically my current goal is to start over; to look at the basic chess tactics from step one and learn them the right way this time (understand the mechanisms inside and out) with the help of a surgical chess tool known as Chess Tempo.

Here is a quote that sums up my current feelings on the subject,

"Solving tactical puzzles without fully understanding the underlying mechanisms is not the most efficient way to learn.
Instead you must first understand the elements of combinations. Do not exercise what you do not understand!"

Weteschink - Chess Tactics from Scratch pg. 15
 

To learn more about deliberate practice with a focus on understanding check out this article

http://chessimprover.com/the-mystery-of-deliberate-practice/

Carl

[dfan]

This is a good ordered list of knowledge but it a lot of it feels off by at least one class to me. Most of the items you list in the 1200-1399 category are things that I feel many 1600s aren't very good at. On the other hand you're the one who's actually been teaching them, so you certainly have a basis for your mapping of rating to knowledge.

[munich]

Phelon, I could imagine that someone who is doing all that you suggested might still end up with no improvement at all.
I know of players who did tons of tactics, read many books, did this and that - and didnt improve.
I believe it is not only about knowledge, but especially: you need to apply what you know, and you might need to "un-learn" some bad thinking habbits, too.

I usually take a foreign language as an example: there is passive knowledge of a foreign language, that enables you to read text. And then there is active knowledge --> you are able to have a conversation in the foreign language, you can follow a movie on TV in the learned foreign language.
If you dont activate your knowledge, it is possible to know thousands of foreign words, know how the grammar has to look like, but you wont speak the language. (Applied to chess: you need to use your chess knowledge.)  

Of course, you need to learn something first. If there is nothing in your memory, then you can not activate what is not there in the first place!
So learning is of course neccessary, but activation of the learned stuff is probably the issue that most hard working people have a problem with.

Edit: While I have written this --> in between boorchess wrote, too.
The article (follow the link boorchess has given) is pretty good! At the end of the article, there is a list of things that help to improve the chances to get better in chess (and not only in chess!).
One of the points in that list is: "Breaking down a problem into its parts" --> I interprete this as "going from the simple to the complex".

[boorchess]

Please take note guys of my distinction between knowledge, competence and mastery. In the road map when I first mention a topic I am saying the learner will have a working knowledge of the concept but not much more (unless otherwise stated). By definition in chess you become aware of an idea and then gradually (with practice/exposure) move towards mastery. For instance we learn how to checkmate with a queen and king rather early on, then stumble with the stalemates, then reach being able to do it blindfolded, in less than 10 seconds and perhaps able to see the maximal play by sight (not there yet!). My points are meant to show the evolution of my and my student's own exposure, but the timing of mastery is of course relative to each player.

I have indeed placed a heavy emphasis on the endgame. It is the area that I enjoy the most to study and also I think it has dramatic effects on the student. Of course this is a question of taste and not the whole picture to improving at chess.

"In order to improve your game, you must study the endgame before everything else. For whereas the endings can be studied and mastered by themselves, the middle game and end game must be studied in relation to the end game."  -  Jose Capablanca

[upandcomer]

Phelon, I could imagine that someone who is doing all that you suggested might still end up with no improvement at all.
I know of players who did tons of tactics, read many books, did this and that - and didnt improve.
I believe it is not only about knowledge, but especially: you need to apply what you know, and you might need to "un-learn" some bad thinking habbits, too.

I usually take a foreign language as an example: there is passive knowledge of a foreign language, that enables you to read text. And then there is active knowledge --> you are able to have a conversation in the foreign language, you can follow a movie on TV in the learned foreign language.
If you dont activate your knowledge, it is possible to know thousands of foreign words, know how the grammar has to look like, but you wont speak the language. (Applied to chess: you need to use your chess knowledge.)  

Of course, you need to learn something first. If there is nothing in your memory, then you can not activate what is not there in the first place!
So learning is of course neccessary, but activation of the learned stuff is probably the issue that most hard working people have a problem with.

Edit: While I have written this --> in between boorchess wrote, too.
The article (follow the link boorchess has given) is pretty good! At the end of the article, there is a list of things that help to improve the chances to get better in chess (and not only in chess!).
One of the points in that list is: "Breaking down a problem into its parts" --> I interprete this as "going from the simple to the complex".

While I think it's true, you can't just read something once and expect to know it perfectly and be able to be fluent with it, I disagree about what the hardest part most players face with chess is. From what I've seen and experienced, the biggest problem most people have with chess as amateurs is understanding what the heck there supposed to be doing and not feeling lost in a middle game position.

My recommendations mirror my own growth as a player (except the part about being 2000+ with tactics first  ). I reached 1300 by just not dropping any pieces to obvious threats, and taking advantage of my opponents obvious mistakes. I stalled for a year or two until I learned how to improve my pieces and limit my opponents with one of Silman's books. I quickly rose to 1580, and helped cement my rating by learning the basics of the endgame. I took a break from chess for awhile, then came back and delved deeply into tactics to keep up with my strong friend. I also haphazardly looked at some starting out kings indian books and got a better sense of how to attack with pawns. I rose to about 1800, but kept getting outplayed in the opening portion of the game. I learned pawn structure plans, looked at old masters games, and then once I understood the plans and what exactly was going on I learned current theory on my favorite openings. While I was doing this I was watching a video series by GM Melikset Khachiyan describing his thinking process during a game as well as the calculations and lines he was seeing, and going over 2 video presentations of his a day. Watching his videos really helped teach me how to connect my game from beginning to end, gain hold of an advantage, and play to convert it. After all that I shot up to 2035 in 4 tournaments, and I don't know how strong I am now since I haven't played in a tournament in a year.

In a sense my chess improvement mirrored my understanding of what was happening in a game. As far as being able to use the new knowledge and understanding gained, there's a reason why I stress going over games of masters. The first step is just understanding why the moves in the games are being played. Once I achieved the ability to do that, I could see how the knowledge was directly applied against someone else possessing the same knowledge. And of course regularly playing games is essential, to activate and incorporate new knowledge you gain (using your words).

The purpose of my recommendations is to focus on laying down strong foundations of a chess player: strong tactical ability and pattern recognition; being able to improve and limit pieces; understanding some ideas of the endgame and the basic patterns; learning the directions for where pieces are most effective, what squares are important, what pawn breaks are important, how important tempos are, and where to spend your positions energy based on the pawn structure; and then finally after gaining all this raw knowledge/strength learning how to precisely direct it for maximum benefit via studying the best opening books and learning theory for their opening, and watching how masters, fluent in the use of chess information, play their games. This avoids the trap many players fall into, trying to specialize their knowledge and say go indepth with their opening knowledge before they even know how to use the raw nuts and bolts of the game (listed above), let alone trying to increase or convert an advantage out of the opening, or punish an opponent for choosing an inferior move. And that is why i respectfully disagree with the idea they wouldn't improve at all with these recommendations if they put in the time and effort consistently. It's probably one of the better plans of improvement for someone who can't afford a strong coach, or doesn't have a master as a close friend.

Sorry if I repeat anything, I am kind of exhausted from today haha.

[upandcomer]

Please take note guys of my distinction between knowledge, competence and mastery. In the road map when I first mention a topic I am saying the learner will have a working knowledge of the concept but not much more (unless otherwise stated). By definition in chess you become aware of an idea and then gradually (with practice/exposure) move towards mastery. For instance we learn how to checkmate with a queen and king rather early on, then stumble with the stalemates, then reach being able to do it blindfolded, in less than 10 seconds and perhaps able to see the maximal play by sight (not there yet!). My points are meant to show the evolution of my and my student's own exposure, but the timing of mastery is of course relative to each player.

I have indeed placed a heavy emphasis on the endgame. It is the area that I enjoy the most to study and also I think it has dramatic effects on the student. Of course this is a question of taste and not the whole picture to improving at chess.

"In order to improve your game, you must study the endgame before everything else. For whereas the endings can be studied and mastered by themselves, the middle game and end game must be studied in relation to the end game."  -  Jose Capablanca

It's funny I have been playing regularly against a retired master for about half a year now, and yesterday he gave me  the same advice, to improve my endgame. He was telling me how much it helped his own game, and that he could aim for certain types of positions from the middlegame he knew were probably winning based on resulting rook or king activity/position.

However as far as amateur games/training go, I can probably count on one hand the number of equal/in doubt endgames I've reached playing in my last 5 tournaments. I think that might be because of my play style though, more than amateurs not facing a lot of endgames. An amateur strong in the endgame might even win the majority of their games with it. Still I can't help but feel it would be more useful at a higher level where it's not so easy to overpower opponents in the middlegame.

I agree with the idea it takes work, understanding, and frequent testing to get an idea or pattern ingrained in your mind. And once it's there, mastered as you say, it comes automatically and doesn't even require much thought to use. It's many times more useful to have something mastered than just knowing about it. Which basically ties in with Munich's point about language.

[t-ram87]

Years ago, when i started chess there wasnt chess software in my country neither books. I didnt have internet connection until i was 14 and didnt have a pc until i was 11. There was an old translation of capablanca's book "chess essentials" and i worked book myself understanding only %5 percent of what he said. I worked out some pawn and rook endings on book, tried to figure out bishop+knight mate hundreds of times, looked on a few of illustrative games with occasional comments. It was all chess education i got. Around age 12 my school decided to send me a tournament with the other 2 kids know to play. (We had only 3 kids know the rules of chess because absence of chess books in my country)

Tournament held in a chess club (there was 5-6 chess clubs in my country but only some people knew), suddenly it was a nerving atmosphere, playing with kids knows gambit, studied tactic (some endgame books) they had foreign chess periodicals their fathers brought, they analyzed with version of fritz (5 may be). One kid was working on polgars thick book on tactics. Somehow i got 8th of that tournament in 50-60 players without being heard the term "fork". First and second kid had national degree of same rank as well and rated around 1700-1800 before that tournament. (1 of them got 1 IM norm before quit chess and be an architect later on, other is around 2100-2200 elo right now if i am not mistaken)

None of my games ended in endgame, and lost material in 1-2 (drawn a game rook down against 2nd), got mated once harshly in opening once in gambit one. But somehow seen the board better, feel it better and calculated clearer. Didnt get forked or sth like not because i calculated tactics but because my pieces were at good squares most of the time.

Well i stopped studying endgame 10-12 years ago (i was rated 1600, now i am rated around 1660) but i strongly believe in it. Not only learning basic positions and techniques but also analyzing unclear ones with complex-nature. And thats not because you might see them in a game. I hope i made my point.