18 Dec 05
Originally posted by TheBloopI'm doing the de la Maza thing but i didn't buy the book. Check out jeremysilman.com for some reviews. They cut up the book. I just read the article on chesscafe and used what it said. Done round 5 almost. Tactics really help.
Seconded on the de la Maza book...
I did buy de la Maza's book about a year and a half ago, because I was intrigued by his story... I didn't know at the time that Chess Cafe had essentially archived the instructional part of the book on their web site... had I known this, I wouldn't have purchased his book... I was also becoming interested in the way ...[text shortened]... chess knowledge. Knowledge is not as easy to translate to over the board success as is ability.
18 Dec 05
Originally posted by RahimKway to go! you're the first person I've seen on rhp who is actually making your way all the way through the program...
I'm doing the de la Maza thing but i didn't buy the book. Check out jeremysilman.com for some reviews. They cut up the book. I just read the article on chesscafe and used what it said. Done round 5 almost. Tactics really help.
Are you using CT ART for the tactical exercises? I have that program and I like it a lot...I think it may be a bit over the head at a beginner level, but I can tell from your profile that you're obviously not a beginner!
I remember reading Silman's review of the book on his site (after I bought the book, naturally)...Silman actually started out with a story of how a couple of his young students lost or drew games (after achieving winning positions) against lower rated players, but then finding out that these lower rated players had read de la Maza's book, and were applying tactical skills to the games in which they defeated Silman's pupils... that's what got Silman interested in checking out d l Maza's method...
Silman exaggerates (for effect) somewhat the actual claims made by de la Maza... he even says something to the effect of "Maybe I'll write a book and I call it 'Become World Champion in six weeks'". And of course, this is NOT what de la Maza said at all... d l Maza says over and over that it will be difficult, it's hard work, it's not easy... so Silman got a little silly in his review... of course, it would be interesting to see how Silman's pupils did against de la Maza's readers after a few years of instruction...probably would get a different picture...de la Maza's method is aimed at people (adults, actually) who want to achieve rapid improvement in their results...not to people who want to study and learn all aspects of the game in the long run...
Plus, d l Maza admits that he's not a Master (he is an Expert, though he has apparently achieved Master level performance ratings at certain tournaments), and admits he does not know how long it would take to become a Master using his or a similar method... he does make estimates, but admits that this is all they are, estimates...
all d l Maza did was say, "Look, I went from 1300 to 2000 in two years, and this is the exact method I used to achieve those results". That's all... no more, no less.
I think that de la Maza's results are another indication that tactics are the most important thing for a beginner/intermediate player to study. Opening theory can come later, when tactics are mastered. Just make sure you know and apply opening principles.
... de la Maza is/was rated as an "Expert", and he wrote a book describing the exact method he used to get to that level...
wouldn't it be interesting if someone at a higher level (FM, IM, GM, IGM etc) wrote a book describing how THEY got to where they are? In other words, giving a list of every book they ever read, and in what order? And how many games/tournaments they played, etc, along with their results? And I would think that once someone decides to become a World Class player, they would in fact, document pretty much every step of the way...
That would be an interesting read! Don't suppose we'll ever see that, though...
18 Dec 05
Originally posted by TheBloopThanks for a lot of info. I read de la Maza's article at Chess Cafe when it was published and started working his system some time after that. I got about six weeks into it when work and family damands made it impossible.
Seconded on the de la Maza book...
I did buy de la Maza's book about a year and a half ago, because I was intrigued by his story... I didn't know at the time that Chess Cafe had essentially archived the instructional part of the book on their web site... had I known this, I wouldn't have purchased his book... I was also becoming interested in the way ...[text shortened]... chess knowledge. Knowledge is not as easy to translate to over the board success as is ability.
I've been working Jeremy Silman's program off and on for a couple years, and the results are considerably more satisfying than de la Maza's.
Michael de la Maza had one thing going for him that most adults struggling to improve do not have--lack of experience. The main barriers to improvement for many adults are bad habits--unsound chess ideas that have been rewarded so often they've become second nature.
I suspect that De la Maza grossly exaggerates his own story, some of which can be deduced from careful reading of his rating history at http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlTnmtHst.php?12775875.
He entered his first USCF tournament in July 1999 and acquired a privisional rating of 1163. A Quick event that he played in the night befor his first rated tournament gave him a Quick rating of 1649--all his opponents were near the level he would reach two years later. His standard rating became established the following month at 1344 (after a tournament nearly every weekend). By the end of 1999, he had played in 14 events and had a rating of 1456.
Through the winter and spring, he played in two events most months, and hit 1600 in late April. By the end of the summer, he was over 1800 and he ended 2000 at 1866. He played in 22 events in 2000, but never played a second quick event (where he would be unable to document such dramatic success).
I believe that Michael de la Maza makes for an interesting story--but it is a story of deception, manipulation, monomania, and burn-out, as much as a story of dramatic chess improvement. Someone that knows the man should do a piece of investigative journalism that gets behind the story in his book. That story might be worth the price of purchase.
18 Dec 05
Originally posted by Freddie2004"Fully rounded" is too vague. It's better not to even worry about that - just use the study time you have wisely to cover the most common concepts, and avoid stuff (like learning to checkmate with Bishop+Knight vs. King) that rarely occurs in practice.
Quite. But surely it should be a fully rounded view of the basics, before moving on to the "refined stuff"?
18 Dec 05
1 edit
Originally posted by TheBloopThere's been a number of previous posts about this book and if the tactic stuff works. I"m not sure who the other players were, but I play with someone who has completed the 7 rounds, help him lots but i think now he is just drained from it and is working on his openings i guess. I started in May last year and because of school and other stuff i've taken months off at a time. So its not the most ideal but it still works. Since i got 20 days off from univ, i thought i should get round 6,7 done after i spend 1 more day on round 5.
way to go! you're the first person I've seen on rhp who is actually making your way all the way through the program...
Are you using CT ART for the tactical exercises? I have that program and I like it a lot...I think it may be a bit over the head at a beginner level, but I can tell from your profile that you're obviously not a beginner!
I remembe ...[text shortened]... of the way...
That would be an interesting read! Don't suppose we'll ever see that, though...
I should have used Ct-Art for my problems but instead i collected them my self thinking i would save money but i spend 90 hours collecting and organizing the puzzles just to save $30?? Waste of time, I could have been studying tactics during that time. My first round was 26 hr and 46 min and round 4 is at 14 total hrs about.
18 Dec 05
Originally posted by WulebgrWhat is Jeremy silman's program? Is there a link for it?
Thanks for a lot of info. I read de la Maza's article at Chess Cafe when it was published and started working his system some time after that. I got about six weeks into it when work and family damands made it impossible.
I've been working Jeremy Silman's program off and on for a couple years, and the results are considerably more satisfying than de la ...[text shortened]... rnalism that gets behind the story in his book. That story might be worth the price of purchase.
I read the review at jeremy silman a long time ago so i can't really remember it perfectly, but this is what i think it said:
Maza was a good player but kept losing to silly tactics or wouldn't find the tactics and the game would go on and on. So he started working on his weakness, tactics and thats how he got to 2000. After he got there he stopped playing pro chess i guess.
19 Dec 05
Originally posted by RahimKReassess Your Chess
What is Jeremy silman's program? Is there a link for it?
The Amateur's Mind
I teach chess to youth, many of whom are just beginning. I spend most of the time on elementary checkmates--RQK vs K, QK vs K, RK vs K, BBK vs K, and sometimes BNK vs K, and on pawn promotion, especially the opposition and outflanking. Part one of Reassess Your Chess addresses elementary endgames--king and pawn, rook and pawn. The rest of the book, as well as The Amateur's Mind deals with imbalances and the "Silman Thinking Technique."
Sprinkled through Jose Capablanca, [i]Chess Fundamentals[i] are basic instruction on these elementary endgames, and that book begins with the elementary mates.
Silman's books, and Capablanca's classic text offer a foundation in positional principles that are more certain and useful than Michael de la Maza's programme.
19 Dec 05
Originally posted by Sicilian SmaugPlayers who follow opening theory without having a basic understanding of tactics and general positional/strategic idea's will not have the technique to win from any good positions their opening books get them into. Studying GM games in a particular line is useful, don't get me wrong, but technique is what wins games. This is developed through study and plenty of practice.
Opening theory is unimportant to the under 2000 then?
End game is where technique is developed and this is by far the easiest place to learn new things quickly as it is obvious to the student how big a part 'tempo' plays in chess when given good examples. The difference between a 1500 player and a 2000 player is often as little as one tempo. 😉
19 Dec 05
Originally posted by WulebgrYa i read Reassess your chess last year. I would love to teach chess and get paid for it. So many of our club players are doing it. I would be the cheapest one but can't find anyone🙁 $7 to cover my gas bill per hour.
Reassess Your Chess
The Amateur's Mind
I teach chess to youth, many of whom are just beginning. I spend most of the time on elementary checkmates--RQK vs K, QK vs K, RK vs K, BBK vs K, and sometimes BNK vs K, and on pawn promotion, especially the opposition and outflanking. Part one of Reassess Your Chess addresses elementary endgam ...[text shortened]... in positional principles that are more certain and useful than Michael de la Maza's programme.
19 Dec 05
Originally posted by RahimKI taught chess as a volunteer for three years before I was paid. Do it for the kids, and for the game. If your work proves of value, folks will find a way to pay you.
Ya i read Reassess your chess last year. I would love to teach chess and get paid for it. So many of our club players are doing it. I would be the cheapest one but can't find anyone🙁 $7 to cover my gas bill per hour.
19 Dec 05
The answer is that chess books don't turn your game around at all- you have to do that yourself! Obviously they can help to improve your game, but the rest is up to yourself- just play more games against strong opponents, analyse masters' games and learn more about chess.😉
19 Dec 05
I hate to see de la Maza become a religion. It is not The Answer. There are some good points in the book, but I think overstudy of tactics is like playing blitz all the time. It creates a superficial understanding of the game. One little point in de la Maza's book that no one seems to mention is his theory on openings. He says he doesn't know much about openings, their names, variations, etc. He says when you screw up an opening, go to the book and find out what the best move was. Gradually, you extend your understanding of the opening x number of moves deep. A simple idea, just the reverse of what most people do, memorize sicilians ten moves deep (which your opponents fail to follow unless they've memorized the same line and have just as much understanding as you do---none.)