|
|
| From | Message |
|---|---|
|
bigpeta 31-Aug-11, 01:34 |
 A Review of 'Rapid Chess Improvement' Michael de la MazaDe la Maza in common with a few other visionaries of his ilk have the ability to take a complex activity , such as chess, strip out the essentials and present them in a logical progressive manner that can be understood by players at any level. Unfortunately another trait of this group is to evangelise their product as the only true way. I propose to ignore the evangelical part of him and I suggest you do the same. In the introduction he lays out his reasons for creating his system of learning. One in particular I agree with and that is the notion that the best performers are the best teachers. This fallacy seems to persist in chess when it has been dropped in many other skill activities. One point de la Maza fails to make is that in the few cases when a top player is also a good coach then you have perfection. Most good teachers are reasonable players who have a flair for getting information across in an intelligible manner. He lays out his plan of attack and a timetable for that plan. Then he introduces the difference between chess knowledge and tactics. Knowledge is what we get from studying lots of opening and endgame theory. Tactics is the ability to see the board a few moves ahead. He then points out that most lower grade players lose because of bad tactics whatever their level of knowledge. So we see group A players giving away Queens and Rooks, Group B players giving away Knights and Bishops, and so on up the scales with the reasons for loses becoming closer and closer to incorrect knowledge. His conclusion is that lower grade players should concentrate more on their tactics than knowledge. His method to see bad tactics is to use a post game analyser to show you where the big swings in advantage occur. You can buy these (e.g. Fritz, Rybka, Arena etc). When you find the bad move(s) then look and see what could be done to improve them. If you see a bad move and cant see an answer then that is the time to ask for a game to be annotated with particular reference to the bad move. Chapter One introduces his training method to achieve this. Its called Vision Drills and isolates key elements of the game to teach the student to see the board in terms of possibilities. I will give a quick example of one here which addresses one of the lower level players most frequent loss makers - the knight fork.. Knight Sight- Place a knight on an empty board moving from a1 to h8 covering every square in turn. At each placement, with your finger, touch all the squares that the knight can reach in one move. After a week of daily repetition of this exercise you should be able to see the squares relevant to a randomly placed knight. The theory is that this drill with the empty board will transfer onto a crowded board. As you progress the drills become more complex until a higher level player should be able to see the least number of moves to take a knight from one square to any other. There are similar drills for other pieces. The key to progress with the drills is daily repetition. I can not stress enough that if you don't put in the regular daily practice then this training method will not work for you. The idea is that patterns seen often enough on a daily basis become ingrained and easily recognised. Chapter Two - The seven circles - is based upon the repeated solving of 1000 tactical problems. The 1000 problems are first solved over 64 days (16 probs per day) then over 32 days and so on until in the final circle all 1000 are solved in 1 day. Again the idea is repeated exposure to problems trains the brain to see the solutions. De la Maza does give places where appropriate problems can be obtained. Chapters One and Two are the time commitment part of the training. I found it possible to stop after Chapter One if you are satisfied with your progress. However to get the full benefit you should complete all of the work. You can see that as with any skill acquisition it takes time and work to improve. Looked at in a certain context - if you have taken 2, 5 or even 10 years at the game and are still a 1500 level player - then I would propose that committing to the 6 months or so required to complete Chapters One and Two is a small by comparison. Chapter Three Looks at setting up a method for thinking. This is designed to stop you grabbing at a quick move then regretting it. He takes you through a complete sample game giving his thinking at every move. Chapter Four consists of 42 practical problems taken from real games at the level of the student. You are asked to solve a specific problem in each one. The answers are at the back of the book. Chapter Five is trumpet blowing time (Users of my book have achieved...etc.) and can be skipped if you wish. Chapter Six gives guidance on following on from the where the book leaves off. I can personally recommend this book but with the big proviso - Only if you are prepared to put in the work required. De la Maza is unorthodox and this makes you either love him or loathe him. I have met and used similar coaching methods in other skill activities and can only say that given a fair chance they do work. As a final note. Using this method de la Maza added 700 points to his USCF grade in 2 years. Feedback and comments welcome from all. |
|
zed2 07-Sep-11, 20:46 |
My comment I only lasted a few days. I think I'm a tad old ....my goal posts (and aims) have been lowered somewhat as the years have progressed! LOL |
|
the-sigularity 20-Jul-12, 06:31 |
Congruous advancement in such a short time? However, the tedious involvement in study is at times overwhelming to some of us. I began playing chess at forty years of age, after learning of it's existence, and yearning to find a place, or person/s who would furnish with a clue as to how to start playing. After learning the basics, I finally found a chess club, and became involved in tournaments. I have not progressed to a much higher level because it takes hard work and a lot of time. So I cannot adhere to this line of discipline and still consider chess as a game, as opposed to a line of work. Maybe some day I will reconsider. |