"Rapid Chess Improvement" A Review - Page 3 - Chess Forums

planetchess.org · 12-16-2008, 05:35 AM

Originally Posted by Exodus5000

This is where I'm worried. I've no doubts that I'll complete this 4 month program and be a better tactical player for it. However whenever I seek to learn how to play better strategic chess I'm told one of three things:
-Read Nimzovich's My System
-Read John Watson's 'Modern Chess Strategy'
-or Read Silman's strategy books

Well I have. And these books have done nothing to improve my playing strength collectively. BTW - I'm also playing through the annotated games of Capablanca with little improvement to show for it.

.

Seriously?... Nonsense. (You've learned more here than you realize yet.)

Sounds like you might be "Over-Training"...

I think I recommended "My System", Jackson Recommended Watson, and we Both recommended Silman......

Great study material. Maybe take a break and let it sink in?

planetchess.org · 12-16-2008, 06:02 AM

Originally Posted by JacksonWShowalter

I would suggest paying particular attention to the following observation: “Many players have tactical abilities far beyond their rating, but are positionally pathetic. Another thing that de la Maza didn’t mention (he was most likely unaware of it) is that many tactical errors occur after a strategically poor position has been reached.” He also points out that even GM’s are subject to the same problem when they get a poor position strategically…tactical errors follow.

Many will disagree with this assessment but I’ve been saying all along that if you have a poor position strategically tactics are only going to be possible if your opponent blunders and allows you a tactical solution to your problem.

many tactical errors occur after a strategically poor position has been reached

Yes, from solid play come solid tactics.

[I]Another thing that de la Maza didn’t mention (he was most likely unaware of it) is that many tactical errors occur after a strategically poor position has been reached

Again, yes. This is basic.

He also points out that even GM’s are subject to the same problem when they get a poor position strategically…tactical errors follow.

Again, very basic. You just said that De La Meza was unaware, then you quote his discontent for GMs....?

And if a GM does get a poor position, it is against another GM. Ergo, they lose..

JacksonWShowalter · 12-16-2008, 10:29 AM

I was quoting Silman's article on De La Maza. Silman said all that stuff, not me. How was Silman being "discontent" with GM's?

JacksonWShowalter · 12-16-2008, 12:43 PM

Can anybody explain what GM Andy Soltis means in The Inner Game of Chess when he wrote:

“Ask a master what he does during a game and if truthful, he’ll answer, ‘I calculate variations.’” He looks a few moves ahead and makes a judgment about the various possibilities at his disposal.” Page 3

“He knows the old saying that ‘Chess is 99 percent tactics,’ but he also knows it’s inaccurate. Chess is really 99 percent calculation-the inner game of chess.” Page 4

“Calculation may well be the most important skill a chessplayer can master.” Page 5

“Most calculation is concerned with minor aspects of the game: Can I win a pawn here? What are the risks of repositioning my knight? Can I afford to trade rooks? How favorable is the approaching endgame?” Page 14

“Sometimes calculation means the simple visualization of a plan.” Page 16

planetchess.org · 12-16-2008, 08:16 PM

This seems reasonable.

Maybe you can help with this: " I think it was Nimzo who said that If the opening is played properly, (Development, King Safety, Control of the center, etc.) That Tactical opportunities in the middle-game will always present themselves?"

In other words; "From solid play come solid tactical opportunities"?

qubChess · 01-20-2009, 11:19 PM

For what it's worth, I found this Silman review. Doesn't seem to be very favourable.
Rapid Chess Improvement: A Study Plan for Adult Players

JacksonWShowalter · 01-21-2009, 03:46 PM

Originally Posted by bjphillips

My recommendation is to look at JacksonWShowalter's posts and follow his advice.

Good luck,

Brian

I was told my advice stinks.

bjphillips · 01-24-2009, 05:38 PM

is two-fold. It appears too simple and it appears to be too much work. Players are constantly looking for the "magic bullet" to let them master the game. They will try one thing after another in vain with limited success. For the amateur it couldn't possibly be as simple as immersing yourself in the "language" of the game and learning at an intuitive level through GM game reviews.

Your advice looks quite time consuming - probably 200 to 300 hours worth of game review that would take months for the average player to complete. So they reject it and look for a shortcut. As far as I can tell, though, there is no short-cut and you do have the right, if not the only, formula. Instead of listening to you and shooting up over the course of a year most players show little improvement over the course of YEARS.

So having said that, what was the part of your advice that allegedly stank?

clonfsp · 05-13-2009, 08:24 AM

Originally Posted by Exodus5000

A while back I purchased Rapid Chess Improvement by Michael de la Maza: Amazon.com: Rapid Chess Improvement (Everyman Chess): Michael de la Maza: Books

This is an interesting book and I can already tell many who will read it will not like it, and perhaps this is a good place for me to start my review.

Why this book will not be liked by some:
-It does not contain any real content other than a study plan
-The study plan requires hours of devotion, including on the final day of the program a solid 8 hours of work!
-The author neglects strategic study of chess

Why I personaly like this book:
-I bought the book looking for nothing but a study plan. I'm an inconsistent 1414 level player and really needed to get organized and create a study plan. This book did that for me.
-I recently quit my job, so I've got a lot of free time on my hands. This gives me the time needed to devote to the study plan.
-I agree with the authors assertion that, while there is merit to the statement that 'tactical punches arise out of superior positions,' this statement cannot be 100% correct or else beginner games would never be decided by tactics as beginners don't know how to create or handle superior positions. In reality beginner games are almost ALWAYS decided by tactics.

Overview:
The lesson plan is essentially a schedule to go through the program CT-ART 3.0 a solid 7 times (1209 positions each pass). Each time you go through CT-ART you exponentially increase the number of problems you do and decrease the time you spend per problem. Eventually, on the 7th time through the CT-ART you do every problem in the software spending no more than 30 seconds on each. It takes approximately 4 months to complete this training period and at the end you should have 1209 tactical positions drilled into your head. Additionally the author also has several visualization drills that take approximately 1 month to complete.

I'm going to be very pragmatic about my views on this program. Like I said before, I'm a 1414 level player before I started this program. I'm currently on my 4th week of the program. I'm going to do PRECISELY what the author has suggested and the proof will be in the pudding. March 2, 2009 will be the last day of the training program for me. I'll report back here on March 3rd (or close to it) and let everyone know how it has worked out for me!

My question to the forums: Has anyone else tried this program, and if so what has their experience been like?

Nunn, in his excellent second edition book "Secrets of practical chess" talk about this book, and it is very open eye, he show why applying this book is not recommended. After that, I have not opened the book again.

HektorX · 09-02-2009, 08:49 PM

I have this as e-book. But I have not read it yet.