Jupp53 wrote on 11/06/09 at 08:57:01:

In expertise research there is a consensus since the de Groot (1965 [1946]) and Chase and Simon (1973) pioneering studies, that chess-specific memory structures (number of patterns and maybe also how they are organized) explain a lot of the differences in playing strength. Recently the value of calculation ("search") is being rediscovered by the psychologists, but the emphasis is still very much on implicit memory.

Jupp53 wrote on 11/06/09 at 08:57:01:

Chigorin started chess at around 20 didn't he? He would certainly be rated above 2000 today. And De la Maza made his jump from 1300 to 2000 as an adult. But I agree these are exceptions. Those who dream can take comfort that it's not impossible, just very difficult.

Jupp53 wrote on 11/06/09 at 08:57:01:

Both Rowson and Heisman take the building of a pattern base to be absolutely fundamental if you read them closely. Heisman has a section of his website devoted to recommended books, and a lot of them are tactical exercise collections, which he recommends repeating over and over. Rowson was clearer on the value of patterns in "The 7 Deadly Chess Sins". less so in "Chess for Zebras", but there is no doubt it played a big role in his own development. Thinking methods are important too, but mostly when the right candidate move(s) are not immediately obvious. So the more patterns you have mastered, the less thinking time you need to understand the position, and correspondingly more time is available for concrete calculation.

Jupp53 wrote on 11/06/09 at 08:57:01:

Something like this is what I meant by "rote learning and pattern recognition". Quite simply, the de la Maza method works! Sadly it also kills people's motivation for chess. So the ideal, at least when it comes to tactical patterns and maybe also endgame theory and opening theory, is to find a method with lots of repetition, but still making it as fun as possible. 

I think children need fewer repetitions than adults before stuff like this sinks in. Partly due to a more plastic brain, and partly due to the attention and metacognition differences I mentioned.

Jupp53 wrote on 11/06/09 at 08:57:01:

I think everyone (or their trainers) should determine a "canon" of basic material that they study and master (not necessarily remember by heart). Maybe 5-6 good books or computer programs covering the most important areas, with emphasis on tactics. I chanced upon Silman's Reassess Your Chess and Reinfeld's two 1001 tactics books 11 years ago, and the material I learned from them is still a foundation for my chess understanding. What was missing from my "canon" was material on endgames, calculation and attacking play. Not suprisingly those are still the weak points of my play.

Jupp53 wrote on 11/06/09 at 08:57:01:


I don't have any answer to this, but the Markovich doctrine that open, tactical positions are fundamental is basically sound for adults too. I have also taught the French to players as low as 1100, focusing on as tactical and thematic lines as possible. Pawn chain play doesn't have to be so difficult.

He generally does - Exchange French and Caro, Two Knights, but for some reason he chooses the Steinitz. Gross. 

Yeah, he's quite eccentric like that, and I'm not entirely surprised. He asked me what kind of chess I was playing these days, and ICCF came up, which caused him to rant about how computers are going to ruin my chess, and that it's stupid that you're allowed to use them, etc...blah blah blah. He's quite an interesting character. From what I hear, he's a great teacher to work with, although I never wanted to deal with being "encouraged" to play certain openings....especially anything with the word "exchange" in it. 

Markovich wrote on 11/06/09 at 15:35:32:


I ran into Blocker in a supermarket about two weeks ago, and had to endure (maybe the wrong word, since I like Calvin and find him to be a really nice guy) one of his legendary verbal firestorms for a half hour. My girlfriend was completely unprepared for what was happening. 

Anyway, he also suggest his students play the Morra Gambit, and the Ruy Lopez Steinitz as Black.... 

Well, if I may pipe up from the bottom of my pit of pedagogic laziness, I am much less interested in pedagogy than in chess and, when I was coaching, in helping kids to win their games.  I haven't taught adults myself, only children, but if I did have to teach adults I would follow the same course I did with my chess kids.  At least it constitutes a definite program, and I believe it is followed by most chess coaches.  There is a very strong player and chess coach here in Ohio, Calvin Blocker, who teaches adults as well as children and, I was told, insists that all his students take up the Two Knights.  That was rather gratifying to learn, since I have always insisted the same.

So what we seem to have here is a rhetorical contest with received coaching practice and preconception on the one side, and on the other side, bloviation about educational theory without any particular proposals for actual chess teaching -- not any that I have noticed anyway.

Frankly I could care less if some misguided chess adult wants to start out studying (A) how to defend with a disadvantage in space; (B) the games of Duncan Suttles; and (C) the deep theory of the Modern Defense; and justify it based on his not being a kid anymore.  It's when he starts advocating it as a general method of chess improvement for adults that I disagree.

Straggler wrote on 11/05/09 at 19:46:03:


Yes, or the Archangel in one of its variants.  But I would be careful about the Schliemann, where Black's big idea is to trade time for space.  Dangerous when Black.

Stigma wrote on 11/06/09 at 02:12:57:
Do we know?  Pattern recognition is a very complex process. And what is adult rote learning compared to childrens rote learning? Any good psychological theories about this?

The discussion - not only in this topic - about teaching and learning for adult class players suffers a lot from some not at all common sense ideas about playing strength.

2000+ is a very high goal for someone starting with chess at 20+. It's maybe manageable (if I believe some personal reports I cannot quote, because I never collected that) but no good guess. So many discussions are more about dreams than about learning better chess.

Look at Rowson and Heisman. They are talking about 'unlearning bad habits' and the 'right thinking method'. The problem (using the term in the meaning of G. Lüer or D. Dörner) is the fact that 'bad habits' are 'good' for other purposes in other contexts. And 'right' methods are 'wrong' in other contexts.

One line of discussion in this topic stopped, that recommending an opening must be something personal on basis of some principles (hidden behind open games) iirc. The method of de la Maza (correctly written?) is more than rote learning without comprehending. It's - if I did understand this correctly from reviews about it - repeated solving of positions until some content is in the brain and then repoduced fast. But who wants to follow this procedure really? Not for a big cookie!

Since Lasker there have been created some materials for weaker players according to their playing strength which is motivating. If you like endgames you can choose between Silman, Awerbach, Müller or Dworetzki according to your level. If you like combinations there's CT-Art, Dobrinetzky, Colditz, Weteschnik, Reinfeld, Encyclopedia and much more according to different levels. About strategy there are loads of excellent books for beginners till master level.

But the TO is right asking his question. There is no systematic exprience-guided material about openings for different level class players. We have the idea of following the development of chess via the open games. The question of Straggler about the Ruy Lopez is a very good one. At what time of personal development in chess changing from open clashes to pawn chain positions? Maybe if the players knows when to attack Pd5 with c7-c6 or pass c6 with c7-c5?

I know one advice coming in advance: This is what a personal trainer is for. Maybe. All I know that I have more questions than answers. But it's fun to search for those answers.

Bibs wrote on 11/05/09 at 13:17:55:

Some quick stray thoughts on the last few training-related posts:

- I stumbled upon andragogy earlier this year, but my impression was it was mostly about motivation and self-directed learning, less about memory working differently in adults. How can andragogy best be applied to chess? Any idea?

- Krogius conducted research on time trouble and found that those who started playing tournament chess late were much more prone to time trouble than those who started early. His cut-off between the two groups was 11 years old, which gives me a terrific excuse for my troubles with the clock! This finding could be related to brain development, if those who start late have to process certain things consciously that are more automatic in the early-starters.

- I think it was Rowson who wrote that adults are "straining to understand" what a child would simply accept and remember. I think there's a lot of truth in this. But adults also do a lot of thinking and acting more automatically (with less conscious attention and effort) than children, and such automaticity can slow down learning of new things if we're not careful. So for real adult improvement we should strive to be very focused and attentive, while at the same time not think too critically about what we are taking in, worry about whether we are doing the right thing and so on. The recipe is More attention, less metacognition, to use a technical term.* 

Of course all the above presupposes that you are already motivated, spend enough time and are studying roughly the right things.

Rowson also wrote about unlearing old, self-limiting habits of thought that are holding us back. I think this is very difficult to do without a coach or at least a friend who can evaluate one's play "from the outside". Those who manage to be rigorously objective and self-critical without thereby losing motivation might be able to do this on their own.

- Instead of arguing from old sources like Lasker and Krogius, someone should go to the current literature and check what researchers like Ericsson and Gobet find to be a reasonable number of training hours to reach levels like strong club player, master, grandmaster etc. (Maybe I will, but I don't have the time right now).

*This goes against Lasker's advice (in the pdf kylemeister quoted http://www.chesstour.de/internetprojekt/schachwissenschaft/Emanuel_Lasker.pdf ) that chess study should always be about independent thinking. Even if Lasker wants to portray chess as a noble, intellectual pursuit, we now know that a lot of chess skill is rote learning and pattern recognition, and denying that fact can only hamper improvement. Those memory-intensive parts of chess skill will never do much good for performance in other areas though, which was a concern for Lasker.