Alright, with the previous posts in mind I've decided on the following regimen:
During games: to use the analysis/blunder check methodology posted earlier as a way to avoid blunders and aimless moves.
After the game: analyze (and annotate) it making reference to my notes made in game. First pass will be without any engine input, before then putting it through an engine to see if I've overlooked anything in my own analysis.
Between and during games: dust off my chess books. I've decided to start with these books to study together, though perhaps on different days and with different weights:
1. Chess Tactics for the Tournament Player (to improve my tactics and keep my play sharp).
2. My System (to improve my positional understanding)
3. Capablanca's Best Chess Endings (to learn more about endgame play, and the art of converting small advantages from the master)
I will confine my opening study to the lines in the games I play on RHP as they come up. And, likewise, I'll study more concrete endgame concepts as those endgame types come up in my games here.
Hopefully if I can follow through with this and stick to it then no doubt the gains will come with time.
Originally posted by scandiumsounds like a reasonable study plan.
Alright, with the previous posts in mind I've decided on the following regimen:
During games: to use the analysis/blunder check methodology posted earlier as a way to avoid blunders and aimless moves.
After the game: analyze (and annotate) it making reference to my notes made in game. First pass will be without any engine input, before then putting it ...[text shortened]... I can follow through with this and stick to it then no doubt the gains will come with time.
also, it's good to remember that all things do not work similarly for everybody. for example, you may find out that a stuctured thought process doesn't really suit you (it didn't really work for me in the end), or something else like that. so if you see it fit, adjust your study plan accordingly. just make sure the adjustment isn't driven by laziness (a common foe for us all), but by a real need.
and remember to have fun with the studying (at least occasionally), or you won't stay motivated.
Originally posted by Mark AdkinsYah I think we agree with eachother here..
If that is your conclusion then wouldn't it be more accurate to say that "chess is half tactics and half positional considerations"? Because there is a description I could agree with.
They kinda blend into eachother, neither is more important.