Not in chess but, after reading, it feels like that's what we have been doing in other phases of life and gradually master any new skill. However, it sounds interesting and will try it for a new skill and come back to share more.
Tactics_Woodpecker method
Sort:
It's strictly tactics training. Theres still positional and vision/calculation to consider in order to get a noticeable improvement. I recommend woodpecker 2 for positional training. And I recommend this website for vision/calculation as well as an interactive woodpecker 1 app where you can choose the amount of puzzles as well as
... rating level. It'll pull positions from lichess database. There's also a vision/calculation app there too. I find it made imediate improvements for me .
Chesstraining(dot)app
Problem with woodpecker method is every chosen position is ambiguous and there are several ways to solve the puzzles. Chess tactic training offered on chess.com is much better for improvers!
SpanishStallion wrote:
Problem with woodpecker method is every chosen position is ambiguous and there are several ways to solve the puzzles. Chess tactic training offered on chess.com is much better for improvers!
That's a fair point! The Woodpecker Method definitely has its limitations, especially with ambiguous positions. That said, its strength lies in the spaced repetition approach, which can help solidify patterns. But I agree—chess.com's tactics trainer is much more dynamic and adaptive for steady improvement.
SpanishStallion wrote:
Problem with woodpecker method is every chosen position is ambiguous and there are several ways to solve the puzzles. Chess tactic training offered on chess.com is much better for improvers!
he does write when there are multiple solutions though, but yeah, some of the problems are a bit confusing when you just start solving it and don't know there could be 2 solutions. Also to update you guys I'm taking quite big breaks in between the cycles, but 2nd cycle took me 64h, which is not twice as fast unfortunately, but the accuracy improved to 94,14% for easy and 72,44% for intermediates. 3rd cycle was better time wise I think, took me 33h and 96,85% for easy and 76,9% for intermediates. Not sure if my improvement is good enough but I can definitely feel like I'm getting a bit lazy with calculations, especially when I think I remember the solution but can't distinguish between the correct solution and the mistake I made last time
1 day ago
0
#9
I finished woodpecker method, challenged a bully who bullied me for how bad I was to a game with him playing normally and me blindfolded and I smoked ×10 him
Rapid-hour: yes, I went through a few pages of the woodpecker method and soon I realised that it was wasting my time because the puzzles can be solved in several different ways depending on the style of the individual player. Overall, the Woodpecker method does not improve our chess as it does not teach as neither tactics nor strategy and not even calculation in a technical way. In fact, solving chess puzzles and studying strategy through game analysis are much more effective ways to improve.
5 hrs ago
0
#11
It's supposed to be hard — the idea is not instant improvement, but deep pattern recognition over time through spaced repetition.
A lot of people might have heard of the book Woodpecker Method, if you haven't it's basically a tactics book that you need to repeat 7 times, each time quicker and quicker. The ones that went through it, what is your experience with it? More importantly, do you see improvement in your actual play?
I've just gone through the whole beginner and intermediate section after 99 hours (only the first cycle) and honestly it's the most difficult thing I've ever done in relation to chess. Did everyone find it as hard? I might have gone too deep prioritizing accuracy, but honestly the accuracy is not even that high, 93% for easy and 67% for intermediate and I wouldn't say I feel big improvement in my play. Would love to hear your thoughts.