The issue here is not that, I'm afraid.

In short : scientific inquiry seems to have established that 'chess proficiency' seems to follow the pattern of (acquiring) language proficiency

For this topic this is highly relevant as the ability to acquire a ("foreign") language seems to be at its peak at the age of three (yes, "3") and to peter out towards age 18.

Beyond that age the simple 'immersion' strategy does not yield any significant results any more, and other ('slower') strategies are called for.

If that is the case (as it seems to be today) then to copyycat approach of 'immersion into tactical tabiyas' as put forward by MNB and Markovich is doomed to fail with adults.

Mind you : I do not have the slightest doubt about both gentleman's ability to work 'wonders' with the youths they coach. (I've spent enough time on this forum to know what they stand for and what they accomplish). But I do have serious doubts about the 'transponibility" of this labour of love towards adult 'pupils'.

I recently read a book called "Talent Is Overrated: What Really Separates World-Class Performers from Everybody Else" 
by Geoff Colvin which advocates the view that the main determinant of success is  hard work and focused well designed practice. Here is a short article by the same writer:

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/10/30/8391794/index....

I am not sure I am 100% convinced that talent is totally iirelevant, but I do believe it is certinaly much less of a factor than we tend to believe. I cannot think of any activity outside of chess in which I was unable to improve in when I really made the effort to - even as an adult. However, I can think of many areas in which I wish I could improve, but in all honesty, I am not prepared to put in the effort it will take.  

The issue I think with most adults is not that they cannot improve. It is that they are really not prepared to do what it takes. We have careers, spouses, kids, other interests. And before we deride such chess players, let's think of ourselves and our own many other pastimes in which we are mediocre. I play volleyball for fun occasionally. But I am a lousy player. I would love to get  better at it, but I am not prepared to do what it would take. Yeah, i might practice my serve now and then, but I know it will take a lot more than that to get much better. It is just not a priority. I am sure we all have similar pastimes where the same applies. The truth for most chess players is exactly that. 

So for such chess players, no point preaching about playing open games or the like. Let them play what they enjoy.

Straggler wrote on 10/14/09 at 18:27:43:
 
Whether there is potential for improvement also depends on what kind of training has already been tried! For example, if someone has never played through a good general middlegame book, never studied the games of the world champions, never studied a good endgame book like Dvoretsky's and most crucially, never gone through a tactics training course several times (etc. etc.) you can't conclude that further improvement is impossible. Time and dedication are more likely limitiatons, and improvement is invariably slower for adults than for children.

Straggler wrote on 10/14/09 at 18:27:43:


Rowson's comments on unlearning are in part 1 (and mainly in chapter 1) of "Chess for Zebras". His solution to the problem of adult improvement there is learning by doing; developing skill by solving difficult problems during play and training. Though I actually think he goes too far in downplaying the value of adding knowledge.

Rowson also wrote about bad habits that must be unlearned before adults can make progress. He's probably right, but it can be painful because it means many will have to get worse (short-term) before they can get better (long-term). Silman similarly wrote that many amateurs are "skilled in their mediocrity"; they have a mastery of their own approch to chess even though that approach is not optimal and is likely holding them back.

I'm interested in that literature on brain growth Bowen; do you have any good references? 

I read some comments on the internet that by being very focused and intense in the learning situation, adults can to a large extent close the gap between childhood and adult learning. On that view, the inefficient learning of adults is partly because we're so used to doing things on auto-pilot, conserving energy. Sadly I didn't write down the references for that point.

One major fallacy is the notion that everyone can improve and that improvement is a natural thing that only has to be pursued in proper fashion to be achieved.

Like music and higher mathematics, not everyone has a neural network in their brain that can be programmed for chess, regardless of methodology.  Without the genetic predisposition to reach higher levels of any pursuit, one will not reach the higher level, regardless of coach or coaching methods.

Thus coaches and their methods often end up gaining far too much credit for something that would usually happen in the natural order of events anyway.

As for helping adults improve, that is the easiest money to pick from the tree as adults will not improve very much at all in chess, regardless of methodology employed.

Straggler wrote on 10/14/09 at 09:45:31:


Certainly not me, unless I can count myself in as my own "student"; as an adult (above 18) I have gained "1100 points in 11 years". Still I have some ideas. The first question to ask is how different training for stuck adults has to be from training for juniors. I think an emphasis on tactics, attacks and open positions can only do good even for adults if they have enough time to study. But this work will also involve time-consuming calculation training; switching to an active, attacking style if you still suck at calculation will not improve results! Even though I myself like to outplay my opponents positionally before opening the position, I often find lower-rated opponents (say, below 2000) completely at sea when it eventually gets tactical.

Maybe a less painful way for adults is to first work hard at tactics, calculation and attacking play, and only then switch to more open, active openings to take advantage of the newfound skills. For example I currently play 1.d4 almost exclusively, but I may take up 1.e4 more seriously again when I get through that stack of books on attacking play on my desk

Apart from the openings, I agree with Zatara that the one really indispensable path to improvement is tactics, tactics, tactics!
The notorious De la Maza plan works, the problem is that many of those who actually found time for it, got so exchausted that they lost motivation for chess. But I can't imagine an improvement plan either for myself or a student without a milder version of this. Tactics training has become so much easier with new computer programs that it's just irrationial not to try this if one really wants to improve.

Besides tactics and openings there are several other things I would try before giving up on self-improvement: studying general positional play, attacking play, endgame theory and strategic endgames. Most players can get a good idea of where their weaknesses lie if they take an honest look at their games (or show them to a coach). It's always sad to see players who throw away the scoresheets to their losses and only want to talk about their wins; they are making it so much harder for themselves. A systematic weakness in your game that you're honestly aware of is not a problem, it's an opportunity! I found two texts by Dan Heisman particularly inspirational in terms of facing up to one's weaknesses: Check out http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman54.pdf and http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman69.pdf

Straggler wrote on 10/14/09 at 09:45:31:


Something tells me that their problems are not due to lack of openingknowledge  .