25 Nov 07
1 edit
Originally posted by wormwoodI think you are underestimating the ability of kids. It's not just the ability to learn faster; Kids can be disciplined and they can plan- In our local chess club, dozens of kids have achieved 400 point, 500, a few even 600 point improvements in 1 year. I recently talked to a 14 year old who had gone from 1000 to 1900 in about 2 years. He had made his own study plan and had studied for 2 hours a day to reach 1800( which took him only about a year from reaching 1000). This shows that kids do have the displine and the attitude to work hard- in addition to being able to learn faster
I started at 29, 2½ half years ago. I think the neurological truth about children learning faster is completely misleading, because kids can't study as efficiently as adults. kids have no dicipline, ability to plan nor perspective on learning things. all things being equal, adults learn slower. but the things are not equal, far from it, and I can tea t time, with vastly greater vocabulary, where as a kid will take 10 years at least for that.
25 Nov 07
1 edit
Originally posted by wormwoodI learnt chess at 11, by 14 I was 1600 and at 18 I was rated 1800 only improving to 1900 10 years later. At that stage I started studying seriously for the first time before peaking at 2170 at 33. It has been downhill ever since and I don't expect ever to get to that grade again.
I started at 29, 2½ half years ago. I think the neurological truth about children learning faster is completely misleading, because kids can't study as efficiently as adults. kids have no dicipline, ability to plan nor perspective on learning things. all things being equal, adults learn slower. but the things are not equal, far from it, and I can tea t time, with vastly greater vocabulary, where as a kid will take 10 years at least for that.
25 Nov 07
1 edit
so....like i said.....being thirty and wanting a high rating...say 2000....is probably not going to happen if you are just starting to study and you're at 1400 now.
i'm at 1400 after 3 years. I just started studying seriously every day.
and i know getting to 1800 strong is going to be a tough battle.
i started at 25 years of age....28 now....hope to be 1800 otb by the time i hit 30.
25 Nov 07
Originally posted by chesskid001well, 2½ years ago I learned how the pieces move, and now I'm at 1977. sounds like about the same speed of improvement to me.
I think you are underestimating the ability of kids. It's not just the ability to learn faster; Kids can be disciplined and they can plan- In our local chess club, dozens of kids have achieved 400 point, 500, a few even 600 point improvements in 1 year. I recently talked to a 14 year old who had gone from 1000 to 1900 in about 2 years. He had made his ow ...[text shortened]... s do have the displine and the attitude to work hard- in addition to being able to learn faster
25 Nov 07
Originally posted by Dragon Firethis is not true I have an engine that I can get wins from sacs that it doesn't even look at or looks at for a few seconds and then discards it for some reason but once I play the move it resigns.
The only players who never miss a tactical ploy are computer engines.
25 Nov 07
Originally posted by Dragon Fireso, how much do you train daily now?
I learnt chess at 11, by 14 I was 1600 and at 18 I was rated 1800 only improving to 1900 10 years later. At that stage I started studying seriously for the first time before peaking at 2170 at 33. It has been downhill ever since and I don't expect ever to get to that grade again.
25 Nov 07
Originally posted by wormwoodIs that OTB or here?
well, 2½ years ago I learned how the pieces move, and now I'm at 1977. sounds like about the same speed of improvement to me.
cause this is correspondence chess and trust me it is a whole different scenario.
Playing in the NY Open is such a change of pace that you forget half of your openings right off the bat.
I recommend anyone that does play here to not just play in a local tournament but to go to a big one one time.
It will give you a whole new appreciation for having a book beside you.
Plus the atmosphere...the people you meet...the book sellers...hanging out in the bar with GM's.
At the NY Open in 98 we were in the bar after a complete grueling day and FM Emory Tate came in and we already had a board out and my buddy Tom...who knew him yelled for him to come over...he went through his first three games on the board...with variations for the price of a beer...he then analyzed some of our games.
That is about 160 bucks for private lessons...but for $7 in beer we all got a great lesson and a real good time.
Dave
26 Nov 07
Originally posted by wormwoodalas, you give me hope! i'll come banging on your door if I never get to 2000 😛
I started at 29, 2½ half years ago. I think the neurological truth about children learning faster is completely misleading, because kids can't study as efficiently as adults. kids have no dicipline, ability to plan nor perspective on learning things. all things being equal, adults learn slower. but the things are not equal, far from it, and I can tea ...[text shortened]... t time, with vastly greater vocabulary, where as a kid will take 10 years at least for that.
26 Nov 07
Originally posted by wormwoodthen how come all the greats of chess started when they were young?
I started at 29, 2½ half years ago. I think the neurological truth about children learning faster is completely misleading, because kids can't study as efficiently as adults. kids have no dicipline, ability to plan nor perspective on learning things. all things being equal, adults learn slower. but the things are not equal, far from it, and I can tea ...[text shortened]... t time, with vastly greater vocabulary, where as a kid will take 10 years at least for that.
26 Nov 07
2 edits
Originally posted by wormwood(1) I look up opening lines in my books when I play here;
so, how much do you train daily now?
(2) I read appropriate end game books if and when I come to that sort of ending;
(3) I do the puzzles in the newspapers if I can solve them in 5 minutes. If I can't I give up.
Is this enough studying? Is it why my grade is going down not up?
P.S. Prior to joining RHP last year I did not read a chess book for 20 years.
P.P.S. Since joining RHP my grade OTB has risen slightly for the 1st time in 10 years. Only 20 points mind you but its a start and OTB grades change much slower than here (purely due to the number of games played).
P.P.P.S. I think when you start playing chess at a young age your improvement in the 1st 2 years is phenominal. My father taught me at 11 and beat me in 4 moves, 2 years later I was beating him and his friends at the chess club he ran at our house - he never played me again but fully supported me in my subsequent efforts to improve. My rating rise in those 2 years must have been 600-800 points but you then reach a plateau that cannot be improved upon without study. I got a couple of opening books (MCO and something on Indian Defenses, a couple of Packman books on Tactics and Strategy and a book on "Basic" Chess Endings). These books were all I needed to get to 1900 but after that much more specialised study became necessary, (for me) especially on the openings. I studied a couple of hours a day for 2 years to reach my peak rating in my early 30s but once I stopped studying my rating dropped back quite quickly to about 2000 where it remained for 15 years before starting its inevitiable decline.
26 Nov 07
Originally posted by nmdavidbhere, and yeah, I realize it's a whole different game. it was more of an motivational observation than self-assessment. I don't play otb, but I tend to do well under pressure so I suspect it would go relatively well. with 'relatively well' I'm thinking 1700-1800. after getting used to 3d that is, as right now I'd be borderline blind otb...
Is that OTB or here?
cause this is correspondence chess and trust me it is a whole different scenario.
26 Nov 07
1 edit
Originally posted by Dragon Firesounds like too little to me, although I can't naturally know how much real effort you put into that. does it make you feel exhausted afterwards? if your training doesn't tire you, I don't know how much gain you can expect?
(1) I look up opening lines in my books when I play here;
(2) I read appropriate end game books if and when I come to that sort of ending;
(3) I do the puzzles in the newspapers if I can solve them in 5 minutes. If I can't I give up.
[b]Is this enough studying? Is it why my grade is going down not up?
[/b]
previously, I did 2-4 hours of tactics a day, played a couple of hours and usually about an hour of other training. with the exception of tactics, I consider my training to have been half-assed at best. right now I'm just leisurely doing a little tactics every day, so I don't expect any improvement either until I start real training again.
about half a year ago I talked with an improving 2200-player, and asked about his training. he listed everything up, and the amount of work was staggering. it made me feel incredibly lazy. and what I've seen of him, he seems to be the type who meticulously executes his plans, so I don't think he was exaggerating either.
it would be really nice to get a survey of how much, what, and how hard strong players train in relation to whether they're still improving or not.
26 Nov 07
Originally posted by wormwoodYou are quite correct, it is far too little if you want to improve which explains why I have dropped below my peak and cannot get back up there.
sounds like too little to me, although I can't naturally know how much real effort you put into that. does it make you feel exhausted afterwards? if your training doesn't tire you, I don't know how much gain you can expect?
previously, I did 2-4 hours of tactics a day, played a couple of hours and usually about an hour of other training. with the excepti ...[text shortened]... hard strong players train in relation to whether they're still improving or not.
As far as effort is concerned when I peaked (20 years ago) at 2170 the effort over the previous 24 months was phenominal and exhausting but it had pulled my rating up 150 points and I felt that with continued effort I had another 150 in me but that would be my limit.
Now I can maintain a rating ao about 1850 without any effort at all but to get it up to what it is here and maintain it there takes more time and effort than I (or my importantly my wife) am willing to put in.
- Joined
- 20 Jan 07
- Moves
- 24578
26 Nov 07
1 edit
Originally posted by wormwoodI honestly think there is a huge misconception regarding improvement. the general idea seems to be that studying books, learning about a specific area of chess and then applying it to your games is the way to improvement. I'm not so sure!
sounds like too little to me, although I can't naturally know how much real effort you put into that. does it make you feel exhausted afterwards? if your training doesn't tire you, I don't know how much gain you can expect?
previously, I did 2-4 hours of tactics a day, played a couple of hours and usually about an hour of other training. with the excepti hard strong players train in relation to whether they're still improving or not.
Both Alex Yermolinsky and Jonathon Rowson in their respective books, The Road to Chess improvement and Chess For Zebras challenge this with convincing arguments.
Yermo states, breaking chess down in to individual parts to be studied independantly of othre areas just simply can't work effectively. The game has to be seen as a whole and learnt from within ie: playing and studying your own games.
Rowson states that most people study chess like swatting for an exam, trying to absorb a certain amount of info and then applying it to your games.Chess simply can't be looked at in this way.
He goes on to say that improving at chess is more like driving a car than studying for an exam. You wouldn't try and learn to drive simply by studying books now would you! You have to get out there and do it.
I must say that my attitude towrads improvement has changed after reading the two books quoted above. I've cut down drastically on the Amazon adiction and aside from a daily fix of problems, i now only play and analyse my own games. Not sure if i'm going to see any drastic improvement but i'll tell you one thing, i feel like a huge ball and chain has been cut from my leg! Freedom!
I've finally broken free from the influence of Brainwashing forced upon us from the modern day chess market.
26 Nov 07
Originally posted by rijnsburgerGo from the simple to the complex: study the endgame first, then the middlegame, and lastly, the opening.
hi all,
apologies for this topic if it has been discussed (probably) many times, but maybe some other n00bs like me can benefit off this one. I have purchased some chess literature and I'm not quite sure which order I should start studying them in. I am quite a weak player, so I bought the books and I'm starting some coaching lessons in January. Which ...[text shortened]...
The Art of Checkmate (Renaud/Khan)
Best Lessons of a Chess Coach (Weeramantry/Eusebi)