chess training vs. studying

I just read a short article about the difference between chess training and chess studying and really enjoyed it.  I also just read the first few pages of “Studying Chess Made Easy” by Andrew Soltis and it seems to say the same sort of thing. 

The main message: some methods of studying chess are less effective than others. And the most effective methods are "active" methods.

So, that begs the question, what to focus on?  The first author recommends "active training" - like tactic puzzles, visualization exercises and going over master games really slowly and in detail, studying your own games and keeping a journal. "Passive studying" is watching videos, reading chess books (without deep thinking), moving the pieces but not calculating while covering a master game.  Some passive studying is fine, as long as it it paired with related active training. 

What do you think about this?  Are these guys right?

In the last two years I've aquired and read (or partially read) a bunch of chess books.  Here I've tried to organize them on a scale from "most active" to "most passive":

From Most Active

"Bobby Fischer Teaches Chess" by Fischer

"World Champions Guide to Chess" by Susan Polgar

"Back to Basics: Tactics" by Dan Heisman

"Silman's Complete Endgame Course" by Silman

"Logical Chess" by Chernev

"Best Lessons of a Chess Coach" by Weeramantry

"Amateurs Mind" by Silman

"Play Winning Chess", "Winning Chess Tactics" & "Winning Chess Strategies" all by Yassir Seirawan & Silman

"A First Book of Morphy" by Del Rosario

To Most Passive

I've learned something from all of these, but probably learned the most from the books near the top of the list.  Given my ratings (1400 turn-based, 1000 blitz) what is your recommended study plan? 

I'm guessing I need to continue hammering tactics.  Every one of my 250+ blitz games (and nearly all of my turn based games) has been decided by a tactic (for good or ill).  Positional ideas are helpful when no tactic is present, but these rarely seem to be a deciding factor in my games.  I can see how positional ideas might be more useful to someone with a higher rating who will see tactics (and whose opponents will see tactics) in advance, so hammering on tactics might have diminishing returns.  In such a case, positional study is probably the way to go, but for my level, I think it is probably less useful. 

Also, studying openings is more or less useless to me since so many games begin with irregular openings (like my opponent going for a cheapo with the Q early on). 

At any rate, I just wanted to share this article with the community, since it made me re-examine my own chess study regimine.

Nice write-up. Though I think it sounds over-whelming and all over the place ... which is great if you have the time to cover all that ground.

I've always found that breaking a goal down  to something realistic and specific helps narrow down the focus area. Say:

- If I'm class X and need to go to class X+1 (200 pt rating delta), I figure out

a) what I'm I doing that keeps me rooted at X (bad chess behaviors, usually pointed out by a coach, mentor or stronger player)

b) what the X+1 players are doing that I'm not (go over stronger player games, challenge them and see how they exploit mistakes/play/manage their time)

c) What are the quality/quantity of mistakes X+1 players make and can I spot them to exploit them? (because to go to X+1, you ought to be scalping X+1s!!)

By using this simple filter, you will be able to "study" in chunks rather than try to read  whole books like a fire-hydrant and be totally confused/frustrated.  

Silman's endgame book make this form of study easy  ... so does Amatuer's Mind and Heisman's Improving Chess Thinker which give you insights into the "X+1"'s way of thinking/playing.

Of course, more than anything else,  the "fast" improvers are always the ones with incredible levels of mental discipline ... and there's unfortunately no book/training program in the universe that will help with that :)

I agree with the view that active is much more likely to lead to improvement than passive, and I love Soltis' book. Exercises, exercises, exercises.

The more time you spend wracking your brain over a position you feel you almost understand but can't quite find the exact right move in the better. Especially if someone gives the exact variation that solves the position afterwards.

I'm skeptical of anything that claims to discern a difference between "active" and "passive" methods...having encountered such dubious terminology in other fields many times over the years.  You may just end up being the victims of the usual sorts of trendy and shallow jargonaires. 

And the fact that you found this sort of material in something called "Studying Chess Made Easy" only tends to increase my skepticism all the more.

Studying Chess Made Easy is a much better book than it sounds. Soltis is a very accomplished author as well.

A main point is "Chess is not a school subject". You can't just get a textbook, read it until you know what it says, then expect to be better at chess. Chess is much more of a skill that needs to be practiced.

Another big point is what he calls "the biggest study myth": The greatest myth of all is that the easiest way to play better chess is to learn the 'proper way to think.' Masters claim they discovered the right way. They describe it in books with titles like How to Think in Chess and Think Like a Grandmaster.

Besides a few of such big points that he argues well, it's just chock full of practical tips. How to find good positions to analyze on your own (for instance, start at the positions that end "unclear" in MCO), how to practice with the computer, how to analyze master games, how to recognize which books of annotated games are good for you and which aren't, why you should start with old games instead of new ones and what sort of thing you should be looking to get out of them, lots of interesting things about training chess. Treat every diagram you see as a puzzle, always.

I don't understand why this book isn't that well known, while Hendriks' Move First, Think Later with its similar points got global hype.

But I still think books that just concentrate on lots of exercises are better. Chess steps, Yusupov, etc.

Probably the snappier title!

Can you elaborate on this a little more? What does Soltis recommend when it comes to studying complete games?

Yeah, I've heard of him. 

LongislandMark, I came to a similar conclusion.  I now play mostly turn-based games.  When I play live, I'm trying to go with 15/10 instead of 10min or 5/2.  Although I still play some 5/2 -its so addicting!

Also, been focusing more on tactics, re-read Seirawan's tactics book (which is great for beginners by the way) and just ordered Yusupov's first book in his series.

If you believe what Lasker said anyone can become a master at chess. Figuring out the correct study method is what is missing. The amount of time compared to the return is very small. They all are saying the same thing, just with there own words. Nothing new in chess.

In response to the original post....Some methods of training are less effective than others. The primary mistake most players make is playing to much, and then on top of that playing blitz games. There are two components to chess ability, knowledge and raw talent. Each training method will give you one or the other. Positional understanding, the ability to plan, opening and endgame theory; all these are knowledge based. You can learn about these things from reading and watching videos. Calculation and tatics are a whole different world. If you want to become a strong player this blog is a good place to start.

www.advancedchesstraining.blogspot.com