http://main.uschess.org/datapage/ratings_graph.php?memid=12455466
Clearly he has improved over the last 2 years, FIDE ratings should generally not be taken very seriously, unless it's a high ranked player that plays most of his games FIDE rated, which it seems few Americans (and Sweds!) do.

Edit: It seems I couldn't give the picture that way, so I cba to change it, just click the link yourself, and it's quite obvious he's had an improving streak since 2008.

http://main.uschess.org/datapage/ratings_graph.php?memid=12455466

He is not improving, he did recover a lottle, he did not even reached his peak from 199x

Blue Flaneur wrote on 06/28/11 at 18:37:51:


I agree. It seems a bit ridiculous for a <2000 author to be explaining to others how to reach a distinguishing standard in chess when he can't even do it himself. 
 

ErictheRed wrote on 06/28/11 at 17:09:20:


I suspect thats the real point. I would lock this thread at this point tbh.

Well Aagaard made GM, so I wouldn't call him a putz.  I do think that showing the author's rating decline is a valid way of questioning the effectiveness of his methods (which I haven't seen).  But resurrecting a thread that's been dead for 10 months just to point it out again seems strange.

it's "disaster" not "desastre."

I admit the author is a complete putz but so are a lot of other authors like pandolfini, heisman, aagaard, etc. but don't attack it, instead focus on books by credible authors. no need to attack other people here. we're all capable of formulating our own opinions.

Chess Improvement is hard, at any age...

His recent results aren't a "disaster", merely in line with his previous stable USCF rating for several years. But not evidence that "the System" leads to sustained improvement.

Out of curiosity I took a look at Hortillosa's 2008-2010 games available in TWIC. He's a very dangerous attacker with the initiative, and a capable endgame player. Definitely some skills to build on!

Where he seems to falter often is in too willingly accepting holes in his pawn structure, not taking enough care of his own king safety, and sometimes playing too slowly/passively. All these are essentially strategic errors that will lead to tactical opportunities for the opponent sooner or later.

I don't know how close the book is to the original Chessville articles, but I think the focus there on how to think very carefully to spot tactics and avoid blunders is unhelpful when trying to reach expert or master level. I too give such advice to weaker players all the time, but on master level tactics get so intertwined with strategy that you have to be able to spot the tactics qiuckly and several moves in advance, not just at the last opportunity. This automatic "tactical eye" is best developed by solving tactical problems again and again until the patterns are recognized instantly (Here I disagree with Hortillosa: He claimed on Chessville that solving exercises mainly trains us to solve tactics once we know there's a solution, and not to recognize when there are tactics to be found).

I thought readers of this thread might be interested in reading Arne Moll's thoughtful review at

http://www.chessvibes.com/reviews/review-improve-your-chess-at-any-age/

I especially like his concluding remarks.

Andres D. Hortillosa
Improving Player