How to become a top-notch chess player

I disagree--this thought process may work for correspondence chess, but it will not make you a good over-the-board or live chess player.

In those venues, it's not about finding the best move, it's about finding the best move in the limited time available to you. NM Dan Heisman stresses a no-blunder thought process focusing on Checks, Captures, and Threats.

On an average correspondence chess move, I consider 2-3 moves and 3-5 ply. That seems to be plenty to compete at the 2000 chess.com level.

this all just flew right over my head i did not understand half of it

I could argue both sides of this.  I think there is a certain chess understanding that will point you to spend your time looking at certain types of moves.  This comes from the fundamentals like piece development, control of the center, seeing weaknesses and attacking them.  On the other hand, a chess position my have many hidden complexities and nuances, where a detailed approach like this would be well rewarded.  Ultimately I think you have to find the method that works for you, you will gravitate to where your interests and strengths are.  But you should be open to trying something like this even if it doesn't immediately appeal, at least from time to time.  Using different approaches will teach you new things and open new doors of thought.

ooh thats super helpful to beginners ^_^

This is insane.

Why is playing simultaneous games the only other side of the spectrum? Can't playing a few normal time control games and analyzing them with a free (as you emphasized) chess engine like Fritz 6 be more valuable? Now I do not mean to bash your system, but you mention it is for beginners??? After looking through 10 possible combinations how is a beginner supposed to determine the best line? Can a beginner effectively grasp the importance of a rook on the 7th rank or a bishop in an endgame with pawns on different sides of the board without previously reviewing this kind of material? Of course not. You mention that by going through calculations a beginner will eventually obtain the ability to assess positions better...but, instead of grinding through a million lines to find a possible tactical pattern and learn from it, wouldn't just studying patterns themselves and the concepts behind them be far more effective (not to mention more practical and time productive). Now this system may work well for you, but you mentioned you are returning to chess, meaning you have already studied basic concepts, tactics, and positional scenarios I presume. Probably very different from a beginner without a positional or tactical knowledge. Sorry for the long post, I just have trouble agreeing with the fact that by going through immense chains of calculations, I'll learn more than by picking up a good tactics book or positional primer. I stand by going over games with a chess computer - you learn your weaknesses and can learn tactics through your own missed opportunities.

dsarkar> But how will a beginner know which moves to select?

The first concern of a beginner should be to avoid hanging pieces or pawns, not fall for cheap-o mates, and punish their opponent for these. A good practice is to select the moves that are CHECKS or CAPTURES for analysis.

In the opening, often neither of these are possible. Then, let this be your guide:

   http://www.exeterchessclub.org.uk/Openings/10openrules.html

And make sure you know how to mate with King + Queen or King and Rook. As soon as possible, begin studying, so you can stop being a beginner. :)

dsarkar> I am just showing them a short-cut,

Analyzing all moves takes much longer than analyzing selected moves.

dsarkar> they were lynched or severely criticised by people who never bother to try it themselves. Galeleo was penalised by revealing truths

Look, you aren't Galileo, and nobody's out to lynch you!

You posted this in the Scholastic Chess forum and mentioned IM norms and national championships. As a per-move thought process, I'm just pointing out this method would flop over the board and isn't necessary to make 2000+ here.

I suspect it would be good as an analysis exercise in some selected positions. If it's working for you at correspondence chess, great, and if others want to give it a try, that's great too. Good luck and have a Merry Christmas.

Here is a start....

As the game starts, White has only 20 possible moves on his first move.

 1. a4 Ware opening

1. a3 Anderssen opening

1. b4 Polish opening

1. b3 nimzo-larsen opening

1. c4 English opening

1. c3 Saragossa opening

1. d4 Queen Pawn opening

1. d3 Mieses opening

1. e4 King pawn opening

1. e3 Van't Kruijs opening

1. f4 Bird's opening

1. f3 Gedult's opening

1. g4 Grob opening

1. g3 Hungarian opening

1. h4 Kadas opening

1. h3 Clemenz opening

1. Na3 Sodium attack

1. Nc3 Van Geet opening

1. Nf3 Zukertort opening

1. Nh3 Amar opening

Black then has a possible 20 moves in response to each of those opening moves. So, after the first move by both players there are 400 different positions on the board. (1 ply)

When white makes his second move, there are more than 20 possible choices and the same with blacks second move. still that would make this tree diagram have over than 160,000 positions.(2 ply)

"5.Carry on steps 3 & 4 for 3-plys (3 your moves, 3 opponent moves) - it will be huge initially, but as you become more experienced, this will be smaller."

Ok, 3 ply will give me a diagram with over 64,000,000 possibilities...many are duplicate....and after taking the duplicates out....I still have 9 million possibilities? And you want a beginner to continue this to 5 to 8 ply? Is that right?

"8. Repeat steps 6 & 7 until you have 5-8 ply (at least 5).
9.Now go through all of them - select the best-looking line."

I'm not really a fan of how you're calling people who disagree with this system "lazy". I mean, I'm not a pro in any sense of the word, but I just find that system to be a waste of time.

In my opinion, there's no point in playing out the lines if you don't know the reason for doing it. The best way to learn this is to watch high level games, or play your own and learn from your mistakes.

Beginners muck about, nothing else.

 You make some valid points and your intentions are indeed well-natured in which I thank you for giving advice to those just starting out. But let me just point out some flaws, at least from my point of view, of the limits of your system (mind you I haven't actually tried implementing it due to my fear of it being ineffective time management and my overall comfort with elimination of major blunders so feel free to point out anything I have falsely misrepresented, which I apologize for now). "Missing blatant oversights" - the classic beginner mistake - leaving pieces en prise, falling into pins, skewers, double attacks, etc. Any system that eliminates these mistakes would be a system worth trying. Unfortunately, going through 3 ply has already been mentioned as at least 100 possibilites (even in an endgame). Sure you eliminate oversights, but they will come from the wrong initial opportunities in the first place, let me explain: If you go over all the possible opening and replies for 4 -ply you'll find Fool's Mate, but this blunder could easily be avoided by learning to just concentrate on the d and e pawns for the opening (probably saving you hours worth of time).

As an aside, I don't think someone who is spending time to go over their games with a computer to learn would be very likely to cheat with it. Not to mention if that's the case they're not a serious beginner and wouldn't be reading any of our comments in the first place.

FInally, hold your horses there Galileo. I don't think Chess.com has any plans on banning this new system and throwing heliocentrism out the window. No need to attempt to empathize with other's situation, I'm sure none of the people who posted like RobertTG, likesforests, and me feel cheated by any means. We are just trying to help beginners (in my case including helping myself) learn the best methods to improvement.

REALLY FINALLY: I can't count how many times you've said it's a shortcut but I've thought about it and there's no way I could save time doing this method. I kindly ENCOURAGE you to post an example of the use of this system in one of your games and how it helped you learn something effectively. Maybe I've misintrepreted the whole thing but from what you have written, the facts don't line up.

WAAAYYYY  too difficult and boring for the beginner.  

"If you can continue to do that upto 8-10 plys, you can play with a master."

I dont do that and i have played with a master.

COULD NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU WERE BABBLING ON ABOUT BUT IT SOUNDS AS IF YOU KNEW WHAT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT IT ALSO SOUNDS LIKE IT WOULD TAKE A YEAR OR SO JUST TO WRITE IT ALL DOWN NEVER MIND GO THROUGH TRIAL AND ERROR

I can't imagine any serious who'd have enough interest in the game after trying this method.

Does your method work? 

I'm sure it CAN work for that extremely rare person willing to put in this sort of tedious work and operate like a machine.  From a practical perspective, how can you possibly make this method of learning less boring?   Because I'd bet my bottom dollar that the average SERIOUS beginner gets burnt out VERY quickly and loses his interest in Chess (yes, even correspondence Chess) by using this method.

I think you'll find that the average person, serious as he may be about becoming competent at a new endeavor, will NOT be receptive to this learning approach...because it's too tedious and time-consuming. 

I believe you'll also find that your method will also be more effective for someone who ALREADY has a good working knowledge of Chess principles and tactics-- not for a beginner.

Catalyst_kh I happen to have the book I think your talking about. In English the book is called How to think like a grandmaster. A better book for intermediate players is How to choose a chess move by Andrew Soltis which mentions Kotov's method. Neither of these books on calculation are of use to a beginner however. They should get a general book on openings and a book on the middle game, endgame and tactics. If they are a complete beginner of course a more general chess book on the rules etc would be best. The books I would suggest they get are Winning Chess Openings by Seirawan and Winning Chess Tactics. Also How to Reassess Your Chess by Jeremy Silman and the Amateur's Mind. For endgames you can't go wrong with Silman's Complete Endgame Course. I can't however endorse dsarkars idea since like people have already said here its more likely to put them off chess.

cool this will help a lot

I guess it's better to study principles of chess first. Without knowing them it makes absolutely no sense to go over myriads of emerging positions which you don't know how to evaluate. Example 1. e4 e5 2.Qh5 - many beginners think that they're doing just great, although the opening is dubious.

To beginners, like me, look at all possible moves by the opponent, think why did this person move here... there must be a reason for this.  Think and respond, develop your pieces and respond to a missed assault.

Works for me, but I'm only a strong beginner.  It's up to you if you think that's valid or not.

 Just had to correct your math a little.  If there are 20 first moves and 20 which can be responded to you actually have 20! (20 x19x18x17 etc)