Robin Smith (2004) Modern Chess Analysis is currently $2.00 at uscfsales.com.

ErictheRed wrote on 03/16/18 at 21:25:30:
Immediately after the loss, I don't think they do know what went wrong. I do think they think they know what went wrong.

ErictheRed wrote on 03/16/18 at 21:25:30:
Exactly. After this happens, then they do know what went wrong.

Knowing what went wrong in a game is not an issue of absolute ability or rating. It's a diagnostic question. During a game you are playing, after a game you are analyzing. It's a totally different mode of thinking, much broader in scope and with much more available time and resources (computers and coaches and even the general public). Strong players in-game are less limited by their ability, but they are just as limited by mode of thinking, time, and resources.

I would be very surprised if Aronian the analyst could not out-think and out-diagnose Aronian the player. If Aronian really applied himself as an analyst, he might be surprised to discover what Aronian the player had overlooked in a game.

brabo wrote on 03/16/18 at 08:16:33:
Only by analyzing your own games will you find out that’s not true.

Stigma wrote on 02/20/18 at 20:17:48:

At the beginning of this schoolyear I demanded from my students to play at least 50 rated games each year see http://chess-brabo.blogspot.com/2017/11/holidays-part-3.html My classes are not made to entertain but to improve. 

In my article http://schaken-brabo.blogspot.com/2017/02/ervaring.html I clearly proved there exists a strong correlation between playing a lot of chess and improving. 

So yes I consider playing serious competitive chess is likely the most important tool to improve.

Yes, marriage and children can explain a lot, of course.

Still, when I look at my own sorry history of unsystematic training and failing to deal with known weaknesses, I would expect someone as dedicated and systematic as you to get farther ahead of me than you actually have. Your peak is also roughly 100 points above my peak.

But yes, playing lots of games must also have some training effect in itself. And maybe I'm underestimating how large a difference in playing strength 100 points represents.

I'm not trying to be difficult or hostile here, honest! Just genuinely interested in chess training and different perspectives on it.

Interesting article as always, brabo. I suppose you're referring to me when you write:

Quote:


I don't think I said you're "just losing your time", at any rate I don't mean it that strongly. It's just that in my own case with computer analysis I keep discovering the same kinds of mistakes, and they are mostly not about suboptimal opening play, but about calculation, endgame play and other areas where typical solving and studying good books should help.

Both I and my usual opponents often make mistakes all through the game, so the opening isn't decisive. I would expect the same to be true of your games since you're less than 100 rating points above me. But still judging from your blog, your training/analysis work is largely focused on the opening. This was surprising to me. I concluded since you've worked so hard on computer analysis and openings and you're still not a lot stronger than me, who played a lot but never trained as seriously or systematically as I should, you must be neglecting other areas of the game.

I still think that's a reasonable inference. But if I'm right, that's not a negative message at all: It means you could still improve a lot by making your training more varied.

Of course I'm sure I could also gain a lot by analyzing my games deeply (but in addition to, not instead of working more directly on chess skills and knowledge).

I really like Kalinin's coverage of this in his 'Chess Training for Candidate Masters'.