My chess study program, trying to get it right.

"All the training will be done with a real board."

McDirtalot, when going over Master games, I've heard of using Two boards.   One board is for the game, the second board is for all the unplayed variations.   Do Guess the Move for Active Learning.  

However, I do puzzle over some things I've been told.   Guess the Move and Active Learning is time consuming.   Some very good players don't do that.   They click through many games rapidly, and they say they acquire pattern recognition faster by their subconscious.   They say you have to acquire tens of thousands of patterns.  So they do the clicking to get those patterns quickly in their brains.

Seems like both ways work.  

Depending on your familiarity with tactics, I would suggest starting with non-random tactical puzzles.  Drill one motif over and over again until it becomes second nature, and then move on to the next one.

My fastest development came when I read Tarrasch’s ‘The Game of Chess.’  In the Middlegame section, he goes over many tactical motifs in detail.  He starts with the most basic pin on a near empty board and how to take advantage of it.  He then adds more pieces, then more pieces, and soon the examples are quite complicated … yet understandable.  He ends by showing how it’s possible to sacrifice material to set up such a pin, and it doesn’t seem magical or mysterious at all.

Once you know all of the tactical motifs, it makes sense to train them randomly, because you never know what tactics may or may not be available in a real game.  If you want to learn and reinforce the patterns, though, themed tactical puzzles are an excellent way to start.

Silman suggests that just playing quickly through GM games is a helpful, but I don't think it's an efficient use of time for a lower rated player.  He/she is just not going to get as much from it as a more experienced player.

It is like a 10 year old, who has English language skills commensurate with his age, reading Shakespeare.   He/she is not going to understand much at all.  In my education, they spent middle school teaching us figures of speech (metaphor, personification, simile, etc) and then in the 9th or 10th year they taught a little Shakespeare, but with a lot of guidance from the teacher.

I remember as a novice, trying to go through King's Indian games (it worked for Bobby Fischer!) and having no clue why white would play a4 or why Black would develop his bishop to g7 and then lock up the center with e5.

Also when studying chess, make sure you give yourself some break times. If your Gun-ho do it Mon-Fri and leave the weekends open. You have to give your brain time to adsorb what you learned. What happened to me is I would burn myself out and nothing ever stuck in no matter how hard I tried. 

I agree, which is why beginners should read games with heavy verbal annotations and few side variations, if possible.

This is also why I recommend studying miniature games, so ones that end in under 25 moves.  Here, you don’t have to worry about long-term positional nuances.  Instead, you get to see one-side make a mistake and then get wiped off the board.  This is perfect for the improving amateur, because you get to see poor moves in the opening and early middlegame stage (the only way to lose early) AND you get to see how to punish those mistakes.  The games are often tactical, even beautiful, and it teaches you to look for errors from your opponent and then seek to punish them.  An excellent investment in time.

Thanks so much Uncle Bent and SmithQ.   Both of you really cleared that up for me.  And I'll start studying miniatures.  Fun and instructive.  What's better than that?!

Sure, we play chess because it is fun.  But after years and years of play, my main objective is to be able to lose to a better class of player!  I don't mind losing to strong players, but when I happen to completely fold up vs a strong master,  I feel awful -- I have just wasted my time and my opponent's time.  There is little to learn from going over a game where you played like an idiot, and my opponent got nothing from it, as well, except the win and a few rating points.

@SeniorPatzer  I always read the entries in Silman's blog, here on chess.com.  (That and batgirl's historical blog entries are the top two attractions)  So I was a bit puzzled by Silman's suggestion that skimming through master games was worthwhile for all, even a novice.  But then I realized that it has been a long time since Silman coached rank beginners.  Since he hit the bigtime with his "Reassess Your Chess," he has been in demand as a coach by serious, aspring players with great potential.  So maybe he has forgotten how clueless some of us really are!  

 The reason why tactics and simple endgame are important, at your level simple mate and tactics occur all the time but a lot of them are miss opportunities. You miss tactical opportunities because you don't recognize them in your game. By concentrating on tactics and simple endgame you will win more games, and other method is to  eliminate one to two moves blunders ( make a effort ask questions, What is my opponent threatening? This alone will eliminate blunders from your game.) Why Morphy important to your study? You need to learn how to attack, Morphy is the best player to learn this skill, will include Anderssen too. I was very fortunate to go to a chess club own by a Russian, I learn the Russian system, its a lot tactics and simple endgame before any opening study; I was 1162 uscf and went to expert level ( 2019 uscf first  expert rating in three years). Russian system work, that is why I dedicate my username to Yuri. You can complicated it if you want or can try other suggestions but they don't work.   I recommend for four books;  (1) 1001 Tactics and Combination by Fred Reinfeld { Yuri made me go over and over until I good at tactics} (2) Morphy games collection with good annotation; ( 3) Silman's Endgame book; and  (4) Logical chess Move by Move by Chernev: if do this you should get to decent rating 1600 to 1700 elo maybe higher, this a real rating not online rating.  

 I am adding Uncle_Bent, he is right in the method of studying tactics. View the video he recommend.  I trust Cherub_Enjel suggestions, he is also an expert, I believe he is in 2000 elo. Uncle_Bent is correct in his advice. Take advice from player that have otb rating, the rest is unless. 

I agree with post above "Yureesystem" and have all those books. I may dust them off and use them now  

Looks like a good plan: I would makes studying tactics and pattern recognition steps 1, 2, and 3.

"... Going through games quickly and efficiently means you can read more annotated game collections and the more, the better. I played through about 30 in my first two years of serious play and it helped me greatly. ..." - Dan Heisman (2005)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140627023809/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman50.pdf
"... Once you identify an opening you really like and wish to learn in more depth, then should you pick up a book on a particular opening or variation. Start with ones that explain the opening variations and are not just meant for advanced players. ..." - Dan Heisman (2001)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140627055734/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen38.pdf

"... Apart from openings and middlegames, the student is commonly advised to study the endgame, sometimes with an admonition to stay away from serious opening preparation untl an unspecified 'later'. When I was beginning to play chess four decades ago, this advice was ubiquitous, accompanied by the 'fact' that all the Soviet children learned endings in depth before they were allowed to play any games.That turned out to be an utter myth, but there's no doubt that learning a limited set of basic endings is absolutely essential for your development as a player. ..." - IM John Watson (2010)
"... I started living and working in Moscow in late 1992 ... an experienced chess trainer ... asked me to write out my whole opening repertoire, including which lines I played against each main black defence, etc. ... I was forced to confess that in all but one or two cases, I simply could not say! I would just make my mind up at the board, probably picking some line which I happened to have seen in a game in a recent magazine. After rolling his eyes in disbelief for a minute or two, he gave me a severe dose of the 'every Russian schoolboy knows better than that' routine, and then we started some serious opening work for the first time in my life. ... my confidence soared, and my results followed suit. ..." - FM Steve Giddins (2003)

Are you the one who posted (about seven hours ago):

 If you can keep to your study plan, im sure you will improve. But dont fret if you arent able to keep to your study plan. 

Can you afford to pay for a coach? Of so, that can be a good idea. I recently got a coach and I feel much more confident now.

My study plan isnt a study plan at all. I do lessons with my teacher, study openings with computer analysis and sometimes do tactics. I used to do tactics a lot, but now i rarely do them. Not sure why. 

My games are getting sharper. I see through my opponents ideas as of late and this helps me to win. 

I jist got into my first otb classic chess tournament. Lost first round but it was a good match. Won the second match, and it was also a good game. My chess is improving and im happy about that. 

GM Serper  just posted an excellent blog about how to study Master games: https://www.chess.com/article/view/how-to-study-master-chess-games

It's more instructive, IMO, than the general advice of Silman and Heisman that "studying master games is a good thing."

The point he makes is that after you go through a game make a note in your "chess notebook" at least one thing you have learned.  (How many of us even have a chess notebook?  [note to self, get out that old chess notebook.])  But the idea of making notes is that it is "active learning," not passive.  My idea, of first trying to annotate the game, and THEN look at the annotations is in the same spirit, but may require too much time.

So, I dug out my old copy of Irving Chernev's "The most instructive games of CHESS ever played."  The reason is that Chernev provides that "one thing you should learn" in the introduction to most of the 62 games.  (for example, game #3 has the intro, "Knight outpost at d5" for Boleslavsky-Lissitzen, Moscow 1955)

Over 30 years ago, the first time I took chess lessons from a master, I showed him a game in which I had lost, because my opponent, as white, had been able to place his knight, securely, on f5, and all my counterplay was nil, owing to having to protect the safety of my castled king.  The master, then proceeded to take out his 'notebook" and show me a half dozen examples of the Knight on the f5 outpost (as Black on the f4 outpost).