Outcome of de la Maza's Seven Circles Program

Hello, All.

I thought this may interest some.  I have blogged about my experience and outcome with Michael de la Maza's "Seven Circles" training program, and it can be found here: http://milliern.com/2015/03/19/long-is-the-way-and-hard/ 

Feel free to comment or ask questions on here, on the blog (or both), or via private message.

An interesting, and brave, experiment.  Coach Heisman has a little different take on tactics.  He too believes in the efficacy of pattern recognition but thinks that 900 to 1200 rated problems are the key.  If you skip getting the most basic tactical motifs down cold, there will forever be difficulty in getting past a certain level.  You will plateau without realizing why.  As a result, Coach recommends a much simpler set of tactics: Chess Tactics for Students by John A. Bain.  You might want to check out his website for more details.  Unfortunately ChessCafe has thrown a paywall around his Novice Nook articles, although you can do a workaround with The Wayback Machine.  Uh no, I haven't made a concerted effort to do his training; I'm too old and lazy. 

Very good points, and I completely agree with Heisman.  (I mean, how much room is there to disagree with the experience of such a good coach who focuses on the practical, pedagogical aspect of chess education!)  For this next program of seven circles, I am doing a large number of basic patterns as part of the 4,000 problem set.  I've researched the Heisman recommendations, and I think I found books with many of those most basic patterns, but that also has advanced tactics (and more sophisticated versions of the basic tactics, such as tactics with a setup move that forces a basic tactic).

I really wish there were a way of taking data points from chess.com without having to write down every rating change, so I could figure how much +EV I am.  EV would be about +63 rating points, and a conservative estimate is that the increase was +100 pts (+EV by 37 points), but it is possibly as high as 138 (+EV by 75 points).  The fact that it seems to have worked is, itself, a victory, but being +EV of what de la Maza claimed puts a (big) cherry on top.

If what I have observed remains true, that my online blitz is always 300-400 points weaker than my classic USCF rating, then I wonder whether another circle will help me much with improving my USCF classic rating, even if it does help with patter recognition in short games.  de la Maza quit playing chess because tactics had taken him (USCF 2000 level) all the further that they could without studying serious chess.

I am surprised that a large anti-MDLM contingent hasn't stormed this forum post by now.

Milliern wrote:

I am surprised that a large anti-MDLM contingent hasn't stormed this forum post by now.

When I first joined a few years ago there were still some threads popping up about this, but it's basically old news now.  Obviously there is value there, but most folks seem to want a more balanced approach to chess.  You seem to be enjoying yourself and getting some results though so that's all that matters.

I tried my best to do the 7-circles years ago when it first came out.

It worked great for the first 500 problems and I gained like 200 points very quickly.

The last 500 problems were crazy hard though. Seriouly, I don't even know how a 2000 level player can do the final set of 50 problems quickly, even if they've seen them before. They got so complicated that I couldn't even understand the solutions most of the time since there were so many alternatives!

Which problems are you talking about?  You can choose whichever tactics problems you want.

At expert level and above, I am sure that's true.  However, much like the sorts of silly things that high-level players say, such as that there is no distinction between positional and tactical play, it is only true at higher levels.  i think what de la Maza (and my little experiment) has shown is that, at club level, there are truths that aren't generally true for all levels of chess.  I agree with my former teacher, IM Jerald Meyers, (and de la Maza) that the vast majority of club-level games are decided by a basic tactic, and, therefore, it almost doesn't matter what kind of position you can create when you are likely to give the opponent a material edge or mating net, because you are losing despite the otherwise winning position.  

I'm talking specifically about the CT-ART problems that de La Maza specifically recommends. Wayyyy too hard for me after problem 500-600. Honestly, I think the last 100 problems are IM-GM strength if you're trying to come up with that stuff in OTB play. 

I do review easier problems (like Tactics Time books) repeatedly, sort of like De la maza style, but I dont think his name necessarily needs to be tied to this technique, as it's pretty much the way any serious tactics study person does it. 

It's all nonsense. It's not chess at all. 

What studying of strategy & positional play are you doing?

He's doing none. That's the de la Maza idea. 

He will achieve no long term improvement in any way from doing that. 

Stop trolling these threads.

Don't you dare call me a troll in this seabed of trolls. 

I am telling you the truth, I am one of the fraction of quality posters who actually tends to be right. So piss off, you have no idea what you're talking about. 

Think you don't have any idea what you're talking about, as you've clearly made one too many assumptions about the intent of the original poster.

Thanks for posting this.

I just happened across his book Rapid Chess Improvement  a few days ago and started in on it.

It's funny that everyone is always screaming TACTICS TACTICS TACTICS but when someone comes along and outlines a systemeatic way to approach them, everyone starts screaming POSITION POSITION POSITION.

No offense taken.  Silman is a great teacher and a great coach.  He produces slow and steady results for anyone who goes through his material.  The simple fact of that matter is that, if most players could jump a hundred or two hundred points through looking at lots of puzzles, he would lose business, because his audience is generally any play desperately trying to make any progress.

The biggest reason Silman has a problem with de la Maza is due to the fact that MDLM disrespects Silman  in Rapid Chess Improvement.

(I remarked on this in my Amazon review of the book.  I think both are out of line for making personal tension at the expense of truth.  http://www.amazon.com/gp/review/R39NSJ9AOH0FYW/ref=cm_cr_pr_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=1857442695 )

I think I'd rather take the advice of someone who achieved over 2300 for a substantial period of time and has countless decades writing and training in chess over someone who barely scraped 2000 and then quit chess forever.

If de la Maza's version was true then chess would be a dumb game.  

What you think you're saying is not nearly as well thought out as you think it is.  You're saying that you'd rather take the advice of someone who has been an expert since he was a kid, and doesn't have firsthand experience making expert as an adult, rather than listening to someone who made expert as an adult.

The difference is that MDLM is giving advice for how to move out of the club level quickly.  Silman's advice offers sound founding of ability, but then allows players to continue making the tactical mistakes that determine their fate as a club player.

Yeah, seems you can't compare Silman and MDLM. They are talking about 2 completely different aspects of chess. Both of which are vital to success in chess.

I completely agree.

I do think it is wise to spend time building a solid foundation, as Silman has his readers and students do, but I also think getting out of the club levels as quickly as possible is what we are all trying to do.  I think MDLM offers a good training program to, at the very least, get one close to 2000.  The big difference in outcome will probably have to do with how good the individual is as a natural learner.  If you have an MIT guy who does CS, he'll probably make expert; a street hustler with no real learning gift will probably make it to A-Class strength.  In fact, endless puzzles is how the guys in San Fran become good hustlers, or so they told me.