tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8556305125957341024.post1591113599117522430..comments2024-02-22T13:53:00.516-05:00Comments on Elizabeth Spiegel's blog: Shy Guest BloggerElizabeth Vicaryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04880561980096775673noreply@blogger.comBlogger92125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8556305125957341024.post-71182494558505847782011-12-30T16:18:22.043-05:002011-12-30T16:18:22.043-05:00I did tons of tactical training as a kid and was p...I did tons of tactical training as a kid and was probably the main reason for my abilities as a young player. If you cannot solve those tactics really quickly, then you can't be good.....and you need to figure out how to be able to do it ASAP. It's more important than anything else there is IMO.<br /><br /> The reason these good players don't recommend that stuff is because these tactics are all second nature and obvious to them, so they fail to realize that the people who can't do them very quickly, have absolutely no chance to become great until they learn how to. <br /><br /> Greg ShahadeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8556305125957341024.post-6574110665290700392011-12-30T14:26:51.111-05:002011-12-30T14:26:51.111-05:00Yes, this had come to mind for me as well. :)Yes, this had come to mind for me as well. :)Robert Pearsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01357942424904415208noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8556305125957341024.post-75233538510032482932011-12-28T21:56:32.326-05:002011-12-28T21:56:32.326-05:00I will be nominating this for the "Best posts...I will be nominating this for the "Best posts EVAH on other blogs" category in the January 2012 Chess Carnival.<br /><br />http://rlpchessblog.blogspot.com/2011/12/january-chess-blogging-carnival-best-of.htmlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8556305125957341024.post-46129965034636751292008-09-22T02:28:00.000-04:002008-09-22T02:28:00.000-04:00Excellent points, Robinson.Excellent points, Robinson.Blue Devil Knighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12045468316613818510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8556305125957341024.post-50197569817795431162008-08-27T17:22:00.000-04:002008-08-27T17:22:00.000-04:00I've got to say that it is obvious that a lot of t...I've got to say that it is obvious that a lot of the criticism of MDLM's book has come from people who have never really read it. It's been a long time since I read the book, but I don't think I'm going to far off in saying that DLM's points are something like this: 1) DLM himself notes that he had read a lot of chess books before he ever came up with his study plan, so the basic ideas of good positional chess were not totally a mystery to him, but his chess skill/results were stagnant and he lost most of his games due to tactical shots.2) Tactical competency is necessary to play 'good' chess. 3) Tactical competency is the biggest thing missing in games between players rated under (let's say about) 1800, so the greatest improvement can come by becoming more tactically proficient. 4) Tactical competency can come or be improved by doing tactical exercises. I'm not sure which of those points people are arguing against. <BR/><BR/>Also, it is important to note that DLM gives a move decision routine to use during play. This is probably, besides tactical competency, one of the biggest helps that an average/mediocre club player needs. <BR/><BR/>I know people have become obsessed with the DLM plan, and the whole idea has gained quite an obsessive following, but I think, to dismiss the points that DLM tries to make based on that or on some misreading of the book, is a mistake. Dismissing the plan as "a fraud" is unfair. Anyone that is tactically incompetent, that then follows the plan in the book, is probably going see their rating jump a couple of classes. It's been a while since I've read the book, but I'm pretty sure the appendix includes examples of other players following the plan and seeing ratings jumps. So, to say that DLM is "just one data point" only goes to show that the critic hasn't read the book, at least not closely, or is flat out saying that the content is fabricated, which if that is the accusation, should be simply stated. <BR/><BR/>If someone has read a number of chess books, played quite a bit or serious chess, and still not seen their rating improve above, let's say, 1500, then I don't think suggesting a determined, organized study of tactics constitutes "a fraud" or even bad advice. <BR/><BR/>Having said that, I think the book is lacking. The plan would have made a nice chapter or two in a good book on chess improvement. Basically, the majority of the book just sets forth this plan for studying tactics -- and that's all well and good -- or gives evidence to support the idea of the plan. But I think most people in the 1200-1800s would get a lot further reading and studying practically any book on tactics, such as Pafnutieff's "How to Create Combinations" or Hertan's "Forcing Chess Moves" and working through the exercises in them and trying to understand the function(s) of the pieces in the position or the geometry that makes a combination possible. <BR/><BR/>The person who makes the comment above, critical about the vague use of the term "pattern recognition" makes a good point. How is it that there are chess prodigies, who were inexperienced, and probably didn't have much exposure to a library of chess combinations, were able to create combinations? I believe that stronger players recognize and understand the functions of the pieces within a given position -- overworked, unprotected, distractable pieces -- and are able to create combinations "from scratch." Some make this jump in thinking very early, some after studying thousands of positions. The pieces are like cogs in a machine and strong tacticians are able to see how they all mesh, or don't. I think this is what Pafneutieff was trying to get at in his book, and I wish more masters would make an attempt to address this idea.Robinsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04039844707596556085noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8556305125957341024.post-14156347105091819252008-07-24T14:22:00.000-04:002008-07-24T14:22:00.000-04:00"The vehemence exhibited towards MDLM by the chess..."The vehemence exhibited towards MDLM by the chess teaching establishment tells me that he is on to something important!"<BR/><BR/>How long until we get a book titled "Kevin Trudeau's Chess Secrets THEY Don't Want You to Know About?"Ed Scimiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05025940834896199584noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8556305125957341024.post-78486852382468079402008-07-21T10:10:00.000-04:002008-07-21T10:10:00.000-04:00Not to resurrect this thread .. but- The vehemence...Not to resurrect this thread .. but<BR/>- The vehemence exhibited towards MDLM by the chess teaching establishment tells me that he is on to something important!<BR/>- His book was directed at ADULT players who had stagnated, and his methods were directed at helping that audience.<BR/>- His analysis of the difference between GM tactical awareness and that of class players was the best insight in the book.<BR/>- His only promise is that an adult class player can get to expert, by developing a laser focused tactical eye. And that is true.<BR/>- His exact method may work for some, and not for others. But with enough introspection, some intent on improving can customize their own exercises to get the same result.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8556305125957341024.post-2086703615643815112008-05-19T17:35:00.000-04:002008-05-19T17:35:00.000-04:00Well, BDK, I actually won the games referred to by...Well, BDK, I actually won the games referred to by #3 and #4, from utterly hopeless positions, even though I was the one who got into the fights. That's because the hubbub distracted my respective opponents more than me. (The first opponent was an A-player. The second opponent - 35 years later! - was very strong: Robert Hess.)<BR/><BR/>Still, as a general principle, I'd say that getting into a public confrontation with someone capable of breaking you in half is more likely to hurt than help your chess game. (If only because it will be hard to move pieces if both your arms get broken.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8556305125957341024.post-81755329613363891452008-05-19T17:14:00.000-04:002008-05-19T17:14:00.000-04:00Jon: 2-5 sound particularly inauspicious! :)Jon: 2-5 sound particularly inauspicious! :)Blue Devil Knighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12045468316613818510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8556305125957341024.post-82192852503976514572008-05-16T13:48:00.000-04:002008-05-16T13:48:00.000-04:00Here's a quick list of things that can make you bl...Here's a quick list of things that can make you blunder and lose. FYI, I plan to make these the titles for the first five chapters in my book.<BR/><BR/>I'm not kidding. Each "rule" below stems from an actual, tournament game I was personally involved in - and I have publishable scores to prove each incident actually happened!<BR/><BR/>5 Things to Never Do During a Chess Game:<BR/><BR/>1. Make a date<BR/>2. Run TOWARD the sound of gunfire<BR/>3. Fight with a psychopath<BR/>4. Fight with a bodybuilder<BR/>5. Send your girlfriend down an alley in a bad neighborhood<BR/><BR/>-Jon JacobsAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8556305125957341024.post-16611993303806168772008-05-16T00:33:00.000-04:002008-05-16T00:33:00.000-04:00Even though I am the new kid on the block...I have...Even though I am the new kid on the block...I have to say that my losses (and as of right now they are piling up like crazy-I am 0-5 on the I.C.C.), have all been because of tactical errors! Now the interesting thing is that these tactical errors seem to be caused by three things:<BR/><BR/>1) Just pure tactical weaknesses: For me it is still those pesky long bishops!!<BR/><BR/>2) Positional weakness that led to me being tactically impotent<BR/><BR/>3) A faulty or hasty thought process that just didn't look at the board closely enough.<BR/><BR/>What does this all mean? I must admit I have no idea. But it has been incredibly instructive to go over my games and realize all this.<BR/><BR/>Now I am off to listen to the Beach Boys "Pet Sounds"...I am not studying or playing chess tonite!<BR/><BR/>CiaoAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8556305125957341024.post-54289219296274352192008-05-15T11:09:00.000-04:002008-05-15T11:09:00.000-04:00From a recent book review at chesscafe:"It has bee...From a recent <A HREF="http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review592.pdf" REL="nofollow">book review</A> at chesscafe:<BR/>"It has been some years now since Michael de la Maza made a splash with his book Rapid Chess Improvement wherein he articulated the generally-accepted method for mastering – or at least improving – chess tactics."<BR/><BR/>The author then goes on to discuss how this is the traditional method, and then reviews a book that is a little different from the mainstream.<BR/><BR/>This is just beating a dead horse, showing that people repeating tactical problems to improve at tactics aren't outside the mainstream of what expert chess instructors recommend (to the extent that there is a mainstream). <BR/>At the very least, it isn't a particularly new or controversial idea. Daddy Polgar drilled his kids daily on puzzles, and look what happened to them :)<BR/><BR/>Note I'm not claiming the author of that review is an expert. He's just a 1600-ish player that talks to people about chess improvement.Blue Devil Knighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12045468316613818510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8556305125957341024.post-47573745436893196162008-05-13T22:59:00.000-04:002008-05-13T22:59:00.000-04:00Anon: LOL!Other anon, who says MDLM did other thin...Anon: LOL!<BR/><BR/>Other anon, who says MDLM did other things than tactics: yes we've all agreed things other than tactics are important, and that MLDM overstates the importance of tactics as a universal acid. Though I know one blogger who disagrees, he's the exception (<A HREF="http://glennwilson.com/chess/" REL="nofollow">Tacticus Maximus</A>). I think he defines tactics so broadly as to include what most people would call strategic elements.Blue Devil Knighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12045468316613818510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8556305125957341024.post-9184196793453668802008-05-13T19:05:00.000-04:002008-05-13T19:05:00.000-04:00My last ten losses:(1) Overlooked a simple tactic...My last ten losses:<BR/><BR/>(1) Overlooked a simple tactic.<BR/>(2) Forgot about en passant.<BR/>(3) Didn't press my clock, lost on time.<BR/>(4) Something called Fool's Mate.<BR/>(5) Offered a draw by tipping over king.<BR/>(6) Tried to play the Ruy, but bishop went to a6.<BR/>(7) Sacrificed my queen to get the bishop pair.<BR/>(8) Castled into two open files.<BR/>(9) Bartender watered down my drink.<BR/>(10) Distracted by voices in my head.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8556305125957341024.post-55017440399529761542008-05-13T18:29:00.000-04:002008-05-13T18:29:00.000-04:00I think Jon is on to something regarding the menta...I think Jon is on to something regarding the mental aspect of the one's game. Many of my losses come down to losing focus at a critical point of the game. Some of the focus loss can be from time pressure, but other times it's due to some random thought that crosses my mind that takes me away from what I'm studying on the board. I too can't always pin my losses down to some tactical or strategical oversight.Pollyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13747958243702670987noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8556305125957341024.post-91785766153833870632008-05-13T16:50:00.000-04:002008-05-13T16:50:00.000-04:00Without even making a serious study, I'll venture ...Without even making a serious study, I'll venture that two of mine are:<BR/><BR/>1) Choking in the clutch, especially in time pressure - even if my opponent's time pressure is worse than mine. (This most often occurs when I have a superior, or even winning, position. It seems to explain more than half of all my losses. However, the particular moves by which I blow it seem to run the entire spectrum of strategic and tactical error types... So, this particular "common" thread among my losses doesn't satisfy Bill's criterion of defining very specific types of stupid moves.) <BR/><BR/>2) Failing to take simple prophyllactic measures in endgames (such as, neglecting to advance a pawn to insure it won't become backward).<BR/><BR/>Jon JacobsAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8556305125957341024.post-88400060706214538282008-05-13T13:13:00.000-04:002008-05-13T13:13:00.000-04:00Slightly OT.An NM who'd studied with Kaidanov shar...Slightly OT.<BR/><BR/>An NM who'd studied with Kaidanov shared one of K's methods with me.<BR/><BR/>Identify the critical position(s) in your last ten losses.<BR/><BR/>Look for the similarities in your fatal errors (they will be there!).<BR/><BR/>Now you know what to study....<BR/><BR/>In my experience, you'll often find not just that you've been making stupid moves, but *very specific types* of stupid moves. (E.g., I was castling Queenside in Sicilians far too often; more recently, I've been sacking the Exchange far too freely.)Bill Brockhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14550157556545540714noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8556305125957341024.post-44519756031612434712008-05-13T11:31:00.000-04:002008-05-13T11:31:00.000-04:00Don't think a single person here has or is advocat...Don't think a single person here has or is advocating a "tactics only approach." Might want to get another gander. Just a suggestion.<BR/><BR/>Davy DoAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8556305125957341024.post-74229467335527360602008-05-13T08:53:00.000-04:002008-05-13T08:53:00.000-04:00I said it once and I say it again, as so many here...I said it once and I say it again, as so many here are obviously ignorant to the fact that MDLM didn't get good just with studying tactics.<BR/>He has read all books by Pandolfini, Silman, Kotov and a lot more ; 41 books are listed in his own book; books on opening and endgame are not included, but one can definitely assume that MDLM consumed opening books as well.<BR/><BR/>So forget about this "tactics only" approach.<BR/>At least MDLM didn't do that.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8556305125957341024.post-29068919255913527762008-05-12T12:46:00.000-04:002008-05-12T12:46:00.000-04:00I have always thought that the process of identify...I have always thought that the process of identifying and fixing a weakness is the key to "rapid improvement" in any discipline. Early in his career, Michael Jordan had an unreliable jumpshot. Opponents guarded him loose to stop his drive. So, the legend goes, he spent hours daily developing a jumpshot. Suddenly, he was unguardable. Guard him close and he drives; guard him loose and he drains the j. Seems to me that the demigod Maza did the same thing. Being tactically weak, but otherwise sound after studying the non-tactical elements of chess for years, he focused on tactics and nothing else for a year. <BR/><BR/>The key is not the particular solution-- which is not necessarily universalizable. The key is the PROCESS of arriving at a particular solution-- which IS universalizable.katarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04032591421971431222noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8556305125957341024.post-90788600434284683322008-05-11T10:54:00.000-04:002008-05-11T10:54:00.000-04:00I am a weak player (sub 1800 how sub I'm hiding ou...I am a weak player (sub 1800 how sub I'm hiding out of shame) so I have no clue what it takes to be a strong player. But I do have a little insight into this discussion about tactics heavy training versus a more rounded training (e.g. endgames, middlegame planning, etc.) I would suggest that like many debates there are kernels of truth at both extremes. Consider these points:<BR/>1. Among low rated and beginning players, the games are usually lost by a blunder or tactical oversight and not won by a superior opposing strategic plan.<BR/>2. Just by being a bit more tactically alert the typical patzer (me) will win more games among his/her contemporaries (other patzers)<BR/>So if you have a beginning player who is sub sub 1800 and who just "wants to play better" the quickest and easiest thing to do is to study tactical traps and motifs - especially common things like unguarded back rack, removing the guard, mis-counting, basic forks and basic pins.<BR/>But at some point if that person wants to continue to improve she or he will end up playing players who don't make obvious blunders and who don't succumb easily to these simple tactics. This is the time where an all round level of training will become important. Then, understanding pawn structure, outpost, good and bad bishops, endgames etc. start to become really important.<BR/><BR/>To use an analogy, I once played junior tennis. At the lower levels, some of the parents and kids were obsessed with winning and developed styles of play which helped them win a lot of matches against other juniors - kept the ball in play, play for errors by their opponent, usually emphasized a topspin based ground game. But as they advance they start meeting better players and to win points one needed to have a more all round game - net play, chips and slices, changes in pace, etc. <BR/><BR/>So I would suggest that for beginners and patzers (like me) studying tactics helps but when they start playing people who are not blunder/error/tactical oversight prone having a more rounded knowledge of chess will become important.<BR/><BR/>Great blog by the way!<BR/><BR/>patzer from midwestAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8556305125957341024.post-39977409493380165132008-05-11T02:19:00.000-04:002008-05-11T02:19:00.000-04:00Thanks E, for inspiring the discussion its been bo...Thanks E, for inspiring the discussion its been both very entertaining and informative (especially if you include many of links found in the bloggs. when first me read your post I never would have guessed that there would be so much to say about such an obvious topic as tactics...or that I'd read them all.<BR/><BR/>davy doAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8556305125957341024.post-54683217345972475202008-05-10T19:19:00.000-04:002008-05-10T19:19:00.000-04:00I am in full agreement with Tommyg’s remark (from ...I am in full agreement with Tommyg’s remark (from his 3:37 post), “there is no real ‘correct’ way to improve one's self. There is only the best way for that person. We all still need to learn some tactics, deal with strategy, eventually obtain an opening repertoire, and study some endgames…” <BR/><BR/>As is plainly evident throughout every comment I’ve posted here, I believe in a wide variety of approaches to improvement, and that was the root of my complaint against de la Maza (I felt he was touting a “one-size-fits-all” mode of study). What I called the “conventional” approach actually comprises a multitude of approaches and subject matter, as I made explicit earlier.<BR/><BR/>A few other thoughts, in response to some of the latest posts:<BR/><BR/>Since neither chess nor teaching nor learning is a hard science, I don’t feel it’s necessary to perform tests and collect concrete data before publishing a new idea about how to teach or learn chess. Unless of course you’re going to make extravagant claims about the benefits that will flow to everyone who follows your recommended method. That hype, more than the content of his method, is what makes de la Maza’s book “crappy,” as Temposchlucker put it.<BR/><BR/>It also should be clear from my earlier description of the improvement method I’m developing, that I don’t plan on making a simple extrapolation from what works for me to what will work for other people. In fact, when I went from 1100 to 2000 in 18 months (from age 14 through 16), my primary mode of study was memorizing fashionable opening lines in depth. Since teaching authorities today agree that is probably the false road that both club players and coaches go down more often than any other, I’ve never been tempted to generalize from my early experience to push that approach on others. (However, I do feel that I derived benefit from my early opening studies for years afterward: I continued to gain strength during college and beyond, even after I’d stopped studying. And, the opening is strongest part of my game even today, although I haven’t kept up with theory and now always avoid fashionable lines.)<BR/><BR/>For better or worse, people consult strong players for advice about how to get better at chess – including what to read and how to study. In contrast, when a school or business wants to hire someone to teach chess as an employee or contractor, the nod generally goes to previous teaching experience (even non-chess teaching) over chess strength. But with one-to-one interaction, whether virtual or face-to-face, people often ask strong players for advice. Someone here asked me to recommend some chess reading, and I responded and gave what I thought was a useful caveat; that’s all.<BR/><BR/>On other forums (principally Mig Greengard’s Daily Dirt), I’ve seen people decry the fact that, when it comes to paychecks, good teachers (and good self-marketers) get more respect than good players, from those who control the purse-strings. I don’t doubt that’s what happens, but I feel like it’s just the natural state of things: we live in a market-oriented society, so if you want to get paid, you must be prepared to compete for the job. Which of course means if you want to get paid to teach chess, you’ve got to convince prospective customers you can teach well (not just that you have some chess knowledge). About two years ago I engaged in a hilarious flame-war on Daily Dirt with a welfare-recipient-minded grandmaster who stated flat-out that anyone not a GM who takes any money for anything chess-related – whether writing, teaching, or (of course!) prize money – is literally stealing money from both the GM community and their own customers. (If anyone’s interested a few good yuks at a GM’s expense – not to mention a bit of rather convincing anecdotal evidence that chess strength doesn’t correlate with IQ -- I’ll track down the link.)<BR/><BR/>Jon JacobsAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8556305125957341024.post-84217863758150779482008-05-10T18:16:00.000-04:002008-05-10T18:16:00.000-04:00We're a group of people who study chess because we...We're a group of people who study chess because we love the game and want to become better players. There's no "Great Leader" and we're not encouraged to cut ourselves off from family and friends. I will continue to solve 50 tactics/week between studying games in NIC and endgames. Perhaps it's the fastest path to success... perhaps not, bu it's my path. Have a nice day!likesforestshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12363355892919115087noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8556305125957341024.post-67658492383853668602008-05-10T14:59:00.000-04:002008-05-10T14:59:00.000-04:00Thanks Tommyg for the advice.As far as good player...Thanks Tommyg for the advice.<BR/><BR/>As far as good players who are not well read, that is very common. My coach (IM) offered nothing useful in the way of suggestions for books to read. Some dinosaur Reinfeld stuff that he read when he was coming up, but it was simply obvious he wasn't a big chess book reader. Yet, he's an IM. There's a lesson there, perhaps, one being that he learned and grasped the game when he was quite young.<BR/><BR/>Sort of like first versus second language. I don't need books on English to speak it well, much better than my Japanese friend who probably has more book knowledge than I do about English, but I'm still way higher rated than him in the language.Blue Devil Knighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12045468316613818510noreply@blogger.com