Uruk wrote on 10/15/09 at 12:25:15:

Part of the thought experiment - that's why it's called thought experiment - is that all kids do work equally hard. They still won't reach the same level of excellence.

I am very surprised that no-one has mentioned one of the most important methods for chess improvement: Analysing one's own games. John Emms once wrote in 'Chess Software User Guide' that if you could do one thing to improve your game, you should analyse your games, although I recall that Dvoretsky and/or Kotov offered similar advice in the past. 

If you don't analyse your games, you are far more prone to making the same mistake twice, you will not be as familiar with your strengths and weaknesses, and your level of calculation and analysis will improve as much as if you did analyse your games. This also forces you to enter your games into a database, meaning that you don't lose your game records and you can later create your own player profile detailing your opening/middlegame/endgame strengths and weaknesses, making it easier to determine which openings are working for you and which openings aren't and also ensuring that you don't drop an opening on the basis of one game, which is unfortunately a common habit among some individuals.

If you can analyse your games with a coach, that is even better, especially if you have already annotated the game yourself, in which case the coach can check your analysis and your analysis lets you ask more informed questions about the game. In Aagaard's book 'Excelling at Positional Chess', the author details an 8-step method that a player can use for analysing their games - I follow all eight steps for most of my games, albeit in a more abridged version than what Aagaard gives. I won't repeat the method here; if you are interested in it I recommend you purchase the book or look at it in a bookstore.

Whilst on the subject of bad habits, when analysing games, you should not turn on Rybka/Fritz/any chess engine until you have made a serious attempt to analyse the game yourself. I know a large number of players, even titled players, who analyse their games with a chess engine without making much of an individual attempt to understand where they could have improved. If you only use the engine to find what you have been unable to discover yourself, you will have an advantage over your competitors and will improve your calculation and tactical vision. I admit that I don't follow this exact system; I analyse the position myself and with an engine simultaneously, but only because I know the engine's fallacies, often understand the position better than the engine, and use it only to blunder check while I find improvements for both sides. 

As for books that can help improve your play, there are an almost endless number of products that have helped myself and others improve, but I will list only a few: Chess for Tigers, Survival Guide to Rook Endings, Fundamental Chess Endings, Forcing Chess Moves, NIC Yearbook, ChessBase Magazine, Starting Out: 1.d4, Starting Out: 1.e4, Logical Chess: Move by Move, Simple Chess, Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy and Imagination in Chess. 

Edit: Looks like I went completely off-topic, judging from the replies. Sorry about that.

The moderator can move this to a new thread if he deems it appropriate.

Quote:


Well, that was exactly what the study I refer to was about : that chess skills follow the pattern of language acquisition and not the pattern of mathematics and the like...

MNb wrote on 10/15/09 at 02:55:01:


Not really. If you're not really motivated, it's very easy to appear to be working.
Say, kids who like cars get their driver's license much faster.

MNb wrote on 10/15/09 at 02:55:01:


I am less interested in what "logics" seems to dictate and more interested in what real empirical data shows. 

Colvin  looked at hundreds of case studies - from Tiger Woods, to Mozart, to Judit Polgar to Venus Williams to many more - and what he found consistently at all levels of performance was a strong correlation between what he termed "deliberate practice" and level of excellence. He uses the term "deliberate practice" rather than hard work. He defined deliberate practice as "activity designed specifically to improve performance, often with a teacher's help; it can be repeated a lot; feedback on results is continuously available; it's highly demanding mentally, whether  the activity is purely intellectual, such as chess or business-related activities, or heavily physical, such as sports; and it isn't much fun". 

Whether you think talent is relevant or not, he certainly does give a good road-map of what it takes to improve in many spheres of activity including chess, than the simple commonly stated "hard work:  But for the record, he found no evidence of talent being a factor - at all. He actually makes a very compelling case. I know there are other studies that have had similar conclusions.  

Now I am not an expert in the field of learning, and I have no idea what the latest research in the relevant peer reviewed journals show. So I can't say for sure that Colvin is totally correct. But at the same time, I am open minded enough to know that the truth of many things often contradicts what my common sense and life experience tells me. After-all once upon a time logic showed clearly that the sun revolved around the earth. 

thanks MNB I will add that to my reading list!!!
Zatara

I agree Markovich!  Let us drop the "can an adult improve" and talk about "how to improve".  Like what books one should read, we know openings to play so what about the endgame and middlegame.  These two areas I think separate the men from the boys.  For example is Silman's book reasess your chess neccessary reading or is Nimzovitches book better?  Any important tactic books that are must reads?  what about endgame books?  I have silman's and am working through that but is Dvoretsky's book better??  Neuroscience is cool but I would rather have tips by strong players on how to improve the middle game and endgame!!
thanks,
Zatara

rdecredico wrote on 10/14/09 at 16:18:09:


No one has said that improvement must pursued in "proper" fashion to be achieved.  What I, at least, have said is that some approaches to pursuing improvement are more likely to be conducive to this goal than others.  But yes, I modestly do assert that everyone can improve and that improvement is a natural thing.

rdecredico wrote on 10/14/09 at 16:18:09:


I must bow to your expertise in neuroscience and genetics, but I will readily concede that there are some people who aren't cut out for chess.  I am at a loss, however, to understand how this should inform the practice of chess instruction.

rdecredico wrote on 10/14/09 at 16:18:09:


Perhaps you find it amusing to set up straw men and then knock them down.  But so far as I know, nobody thinks that chess coaches can turn absolutely anyone into a good player, or claims that coaches solely or even chiefly are responsible for the progress of chess students.  Exactly what it is that chess coaches or teachers in general do, I am not entirely sure.  But mostly, I think they model ways of thinking and behaving that the student then imitates and adopts.  The most powerful principle of human learning, I have always believed, is "monkey see, monkey do."  Modeling certain behaviors and modes of thinking in ways that engage the student and arouse his desire to imitate; that I think is the key thing about teaching anything, be it quantum mechanics or automotive mechanics.  But in a fundamental sense, all education is self-education and the teacher at best is a facilitator.  

But all this about chess coaches is really beside the point, since the question is, what shall a not-very-skillful adult do to improve at chess?  The question doesn't presuppose that there is a coach in the picture.