I think the majority of titled players had a coach or trainer at some point. That and they looked through GM games and analyzed their own games WITHOUT a computer.
Personally as a class A player I think reading Silman's the Amateurs Mind, Silman's Complete Endgame Course, and doing as many tactics in 303 tricky chess tactics and 1001 Winning Chess Sacrifices and Combinations as I could per day are what have improved me the most.
Good luck.
I played through 3 unannotated games a day for 10 yrs, that is 10,000 games. Of course I did way too many problems to count and have @100 chess books too. I read chess life cover to cover for 20 yrs, but now it's not worth leafing through most months. I find it curious how so many class players say they love Silman's books, but I have never heard a master say it. Just saying...
One area? Evaluate your games (by solving tests or with a coach) and find the weakest spot. Eliminate it, then proceed to the next one. This scheme works for anyone, no matter how high or low the level.
Also, don't forget that chess skills are not the only factor behind overall success. Pay attention to psychology, general wellbeing, nutrition, sleep, etc.
One area? Evaluate your games (by solving tests or with a coach) and find the weakest spot.
I'm curious as to what you mean by sloving tests. Could you deleve into it a little more?
I think she means something something like "Chess Exam" by Khmelnitsky
In addition to what everyone else has said, it seems that there's a strong correlation between ability to verbalize in detail what's going on in a position and chess strength. I would recommend looking for a game that you lost and identify the first move that wasn't very strong... and try to verbalize in detail what's going on in that position. Maybe you already have done this but I thought it could be helpful since no one told me about this when I started several months ago. Kingscrusher's videos on Youtube are great for examples of this.
I had a conversation about Silman's books with a friend who is a very experienced teacher and master. He said he didn't think they could make anyone master but he thought they could get people close to 2000. He made the point that they were laid out to emphasize things for easy reading.
So maybe there is a niche market for the under 2000 aspirants. I don't teach every class player the same, but I also don't like to dumb down my lessons since I feel chess players in general are smart people. It may take someone a bit longer to get the same point but if it is explained properly, I don't think there are special chess rules that only masters need. MAsters just know all the 3 phases a little better and have, on average, more experience.
I felt like I didn't know what I was doing before I read Silman. The middle game seemed like one move threats and simplification. I haven't felt that way since reading his book the Amateurs Mind. I jumped nearly 300 points (1300-1600) overnight, after having read his book in a month, and since then I've just kept going up.
To be honest I don't think of the imbalances at all at this point, but his thoughts and system got me recognizing patterns and ideas I'd had no idea existed before. And of course some of his ideas I still use, interestingly enough many of them are something called prophylaxis. His thoughts on plans I found highly useful, and how you need to stick to yours, and limit your opponents when it's necessary. I realized advanced posts for my knights were a HUGE deal, and just other things that other books didn't explain nearly so clearly or bluntly.
Silman's books, like many chess books, do a fantastic job of making a person feel like they understand. Unfortunately, understanding a concept and applying it on the chessboard are two very different things. The latter only comes through repetitious work.
So maybe there is a niche market for the under 2000 aspirants.
He said he didn't think they could make anyone master but he thought they could get people close to 2000.
Statistically, isn't this the vast majority of individuals? I think most people would be ecstatic to reach 2K.
On chess.com for turn-based play, 2K puts you in the top 2% of players. I'd hardly insinuate they are "dumbed down".
Exactly. For me at least, taking up chess again in middle age, 2000 is beyond my wildest dreams!
I felt like I didn't know what I was doing before I read Silman. The middle game seemed like one move threats and simplification. I haven't felt that way since reading his book the Amateurs Mind. I jumped nearly 300 points (1300-1600) overnight, after having read his book in a month, and since then I've just kept going up.
To be honest I don't think of the imbalances at all at this point, but his thoughts and system got me recognizing patterns and ideas I'd had no idea existed before. And of course some of his ideas I still use, interestingly enough many of them are something called prophylaxis. His thoughts on plans I found highly useful, and how you need to stick to yours, and limit your opponents when it's necessary. I realized advanced posts for my knights were a HUGE deal, and just other things that other books didn't explain nearly so clearly or bluntly.
This should be on the nback of the book. You sold me. :)
300 points overnight? Eat that, de la Maza :)
All I can say is that you don't know what you are missing unless you have seen chess taught the right way. His books are on the best seller list for the USCF, and so many people like to give the advice to read his books. I am just saying you would think someone, somewhere, would have said that they read Silman's books and are now a master, even if it was not Silman's books that did it. The numbers suggest some anamoly would occur at least. It has been my experience that a certain percent of my students who make 2000 also make master. There is no glass ceiling to chess mastery based on the classical methods of Steinitz and Lasker or the Botvinnik School. The title to his most faamous book makes this exact claim:How to Reassess Your Chess: The Complete Chess-Mastery Course. In light of all the testimonials, it seems clear this is just sales talk. Saying 2000 is good enough is a justification. The road to going up a class or 2 would be much more accurate. The question that natuallly arises, is what if this time and money were spent on other things, like lessons, other books or tournaments.
Almost all chess books give a lot of sales talk and illusory "feelings of improvement."
Two reasons, imho:
1) Chess, like any logic game, makes "sense" when someone explains it to you the right way. I always remember the poster on chess.com who said something like "I just read some annotated Fischer games and all of the moves made sense to me, does that mean I'm a chess genius?" Once you hear the "right" idea, it's impossible for you to imagine that you would have come up with the wrong idea.
2) The way to chess improvement is through work. Every single chess improvement plan that works that I've heard of, be it books or masters or columns or study groups or whatever, comes down to getting out a board (real or virtual) and playing out a lot of stuff over many, many hours. Master games, endgames, instructive games, your own games. It's time-consuming work. Even Silman's books talk about this. What percentage of people who buy his book actually get out a board and play along on every game as he explains them? How many do the entire book that way multiple times, as he recommends? If more of them did, then I suspect you'd see more readers of these books show real, long-term improvement.
If someone explains to you the concept of a good knight vs. a bad bishop, it's going to feel really good in your mind. But until you've gone out and played over, slowly and thoughtfully, a few dozen games involving that concept, you aren't really going to use it properly in your games.
Agreed with above. I've read and gone through silmans books myself, they are interersting and provide good general knowledge, but my game has improved much more as a result of laboriously poring through Tal's life and games for about 6 months, going through every game and subvariation over and over and over and over LOL But I still enjoy those games! After a while you start to say to yourself - I'll be he would put this piece here, and voila before you know it, piece activity becomes second nature
Well alright BMc I will hurry up and become a master just so you can finally know someone who read Silman's books and went on to greater things. I think a part of the problem is players don't know where to look to improve, as people buying Silman books generally aren't being coached. Just knowing what books to follow it up with and where to go to increase your chess knowledge are probably important.
I have a question that I would like to direct to titled players from NM on up...
When it comes to studying chess what is the one area that you feel most improved your game?
A lot of time I'll see people post that it was tactics. Or that it was positional play. Or that it was opening theory. Or whatever. But the people who post those things tend to be mostly class players like myself.
So I'm wondering what it was that the more advanced players here did that helped them the most to improve.
Specifics would be nice if possible. For example "I studied tactics. I did at least 20 puzzled each day." Or "I played through at least three annotated GM games per day." Or whatever.
Also, since these days I feel compelled to add a disclaimer, please ignore my rating on this site. I'm 1500 USCF. A lot of times when I post in threads I get a chorus of "just learn to stop dropping pieces and learn beginner tactics rookie" style comments. I'm willing to stiplate that I am indeed a rank amatuer, but that would be the rank of a class C player, not an E...