As far as practicing and teaching goes, I have heard that if you don't have alot of human players to play against, then Chessmaster is the best beginners teaching tool you can get. Is this true? If I work up to 1000 in Chessmaster, can reasonably expect to beat players rated at a thousand in tournaments?

You don't improve much by playing but more by studying chess games and positions. Learn important chess principles first and don't waste time with playing. I know chess players who make the same mistakes after thirty years of playing because they never looked into a chess book.

Computer programs can't explain a chess position properly.

Learn chess at the website below:

I'm going to half-agree with nobi on this one. Learning new material (probably from reading books) is vitally important to improving at chess, but to get better at chess (especially for beginners) it's even more important to learn to improve your skill rather than your knowledge. You do this by playing a lot of games and then analyzing them afterwards to figure out what you could have done better and (here's the trick) why you made the mistakes you made.

Another way of looking at it is you can read for years about how to improve your bowling technique, but it wont actually help unless you apply the knowledge you learn by playing games.

Since I was where you are not so long ago heres the best advice I've got:

Get the book Winning Chess Tactics by Yasser Seirawan. This will explain what tactics are and how they're applied, then get Chess Tactics for Juniors by Lou Hays, and go through it at least the 3 recommended times. If you want a new set of puzzles after doing this 3 times, I recommend the program CT-ART by Convekta. Play a lot of games online all the while.

After you spend time focusing on nothing but tactics and playing games, then you should include learning the endgame too. You're not done studying tactics (alas, you will never be done studying tactics) so make sure you budget your time. Most people recommend Silmans endgame book, I think pandolfini's is better for beginners. I'm doing both.

DON'T start memorizing an opening, don't even really worry about the opening for a while yet, after you've gone through your tactics book 3 times then come back and ask how to learn opening PRINCIPLES at that point.

Don't read a million books, no matter HOW good they are. These books will likely mean NOTHING to you until you have a FIRM grasp on tactics and endgame play.

There, that should take care of your first year of chess study.

Edit: Also to answer the main question of this thread, computer programs - like chessmaster - are best when used to analyze games you play against people as they can tell you when a tactical mistake was made. Computers don't play chess like people do so you won't learn as much, play people online instead.

Pretty good advice. I’d just add that, as noted, computers are really only good at pointing out missed tactics. They will not explain WHY one move is better than another. In any given position there may be several moves that are acceptable positionally.

Yes, tactics will win games, but to really understand chess you have to understand why one position is better than another…that means you have to have a grasp of the basic elements of positional play also. Studying only one area will help you advance but it will also retard your growth if you become only a one trick tactical pony. Beginners a prone to gross tactical blunders but eliminate them and you will find tactical errors are often the result of anti-positional moves.

Here’s an interesting observation by FM Jon Jacobs:
"I'm also skeptical of all the adulation that guys your strength - those who blog, at least - seem to lavish on those automated tactics training programs.

Of course tactical prowess is vital; but it could well be that people absorb tactical themes more efficiently by going over entire games in depth (especiallly, YOUR OWN games) - as opposed to analyzing isolated positions, which is what the tactics servers do. And of course, if you're focusing on speed - trying to solve X problems in Y minutes, rather than delving as deep as you can into each one until you either solve it or run out of ideas - then obviously you'll learn nothing, it's simply an aimless amusement.

For a complete discussion check out the following link:

USCL news and gossip: Shy Guest Blogger

I absolutely disagree. Playing is the MOST important thing you can do to improve. But don't just play mindlessly - that's the mistake of those guys who haven't improved any after 30 years. Study your games afterwards to see what you did wrong, preferably with the help of stronger players. And when you notice a trend of making mistakes in the same area over and over, that's when you know where you should be focusing your study. Reading chess books will give you a lot of knowledge, but you have to play a lot to train yourself to apply that knowledge properly.

--Fromper

Have to agree with Fromper about playing and analysis. It’s actually on the job where you learn how to apply what you learned in school. As a beginner I kept a notebook (no computers in those days) with my games in it which had all been carefully (if not accurately) analyzed. During analysis I’d have my opening, middlegame and endgame books handy for reference. I tried to avoid just recording variations and tried to verbalize the key points of the position.

If possible try to seek out advice from local masters because they will (sometimes, but not often) offer you advice that’s not in the books. Also they aren’t prejudiced in what they suggest because they aren’t selling anything and their livelihood doesn’t depend on offering students what the student thinks he needs.

Chessmaster is definitely a great tool for beginners. However, humans and computers play much differently. If your goal is to be able to beat humans players, than you should also practice by playing over-the-board games or against live opponents over the internet.

>JSeeds
ChessForNovices.com - A Guide for Beginners and Novices - a guide for beginners and novices

BTW, nice site!

Thanks, hyperactivemodernist. I appreciate the comment!